triplegrim wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/01/25/40-years-of-warhammer-the-classic-skeleton-horde-rises-from-the-grave/

Warhammer community runs a 40th year anniversary series on older models. Certainly relevant enough for this thread I hope.

At first I thought these were made to order, but seems they are just running an article series about classic miniatures.

My favorite part was how they inadvertently point out how much better their older kits were in terms of quantity, options, and customization.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/01/25/40-years-of-warhammer-the-classic-skeleton-horde-rises-from-the-grave/

Warhammer community runs a 40th year anniversary series on older models. Certainly relevant enough for this thread I hope.

At first I thought these were made to order, but seems they are just running an article series about classic miniatures.

My favorite part was how they inadvertently point out how much better their older kits were in terms of quantity, options, and customization.

TBF they peaked with that skeleton army box.

Man, i owned that kit. I built it.
And all the models looked alike ( which was kindof the point, but still..).
Skeletons were a milestone for sure but the Chaos Warriors kit was the one that actually gave you the feeling of character and real customisation.
It also meant i had to number my minis because they would only fit into formation when placed in the exact right order... XD

CoALabaer wrote:
Skeletons were a milestone for sure but the Chaos Warriors kit was the one that actually gave you the feeling of character and real customisation.
It also meant i had to number my minis because they would only fit into formation when placed in the exact right order... XD

Yeah, I remember numbering mini's back in the day.

CoALabaer wrote:
Skeletons were a milestone for sure but the Chaos Warriors kit was the one that actually gave you the feeling of character and real customisation.
It also meant i had to number my minis because they would only fit into formation when placed in the exact right order... XD

Chaos Warriors were where the scale and proportions of Fantasy miniatures went crazy. Those warriors had no necks, massive hands and feet and, as you say, were not constructed with the ranking-up in mind. That led to the goblins and skaven with their own gigantic hands and tiny torsos, and the re-done skeletons that were bigger than the living humans!

Yeah but those warriors looked totally badass, were easy to assemble, easy to paint, and ranked up perfectly every time. IMO one of the better WHFB kits ever made. Yeah it had its flaws but a lot of that was just a matter of when it was, not what it was.

(That said, thank you for getting that the scale creep happened in WHFB and not AoS, tired of having to debunk that.)

As for customization, I do like how the older kits were/are decked out in that regard but some of it was by virtue of very simple joint structures and it being OK for a block of 20 ranked-up minis to all have the same basic pose. In terms of the modern style I would say blightkings are the gold standard; tons of customization and every dude still looks unique.

JSG wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/01/25/40-years-of-warhammer-the-classic-skeleton-horde-rises-from-the-grave/

Warhammer community runs a 40th year anniversary series on older models. Certainly relevant enough for this thread I hope.

At first I thought these were made to order, but seems they are just running an article series about classic miniatures.

My favorite part was how they inadvertently point out how much better their older kits were in terms of quantity, options, and customization.

TBF they peaked with that skeleton army box.

I see your Skeletons, and you raise one Free Company.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

JSG wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/01/25/40-years-of-warhammer-the-classic-skeleton-horde-rises-from-the-grave/

Warhammer community runs a 40th year anniversary series on older models. Certainly relevant enough for this thread I hope.

At first I thought these were made to order, but seems they are just running an article series about classic miniatures.

My favorite part was how they inadvertently point out how much better their older kits were in terms of quantity, options, and customization.

TBF they peaked with that skeleton army box.

I see your Skeletons, and you raise one Free Company.

It was a better kit when it was called Human Mercenaries and included the Mordheim accessory sprue.

WHFB in my eyes peaked with the current Clanrat kit. Three-piece models that are easily put together in great numbers, enough customization with the one ball joint to give some variety, and a huge array of arms & shields to stick on. It isnt the most dynamic or the most customizable, but it is a horde unit that can and will be deployed in great number before dying in great number. And what the kit lacks in quality is heavily made up for in price--consider what other companies offer today for $2 per and it often doesn't look as good.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
WHFB in my eyes peaked with the current Clanrat kit. Three-piece models that are easily put together in great numbers, enough customization with the one ball joint to give some variety, and a huge array of arms & shields to stick on. It isnt the most dynamic or the most customizable, but it is a horde unit that can and will be deployed in great number before dying in great number. And what the kit lacks in quality is heavily made up for in price--consider what other companies offer today for $2 per and it often doesn't look as good.

Eh, I was perfectly happy with the original monopose just-add-shield High Elf Spearmen, though ofc YMMV for less disciplined races

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In terms of the modern style I would say blightkings are the gold standard; tons of customization and every dude still looks unique.

Blight Kings are amazing. Why couldn't the forces of the other Chaos gods get kits just as varied and interchangeable? It's almost as if Nurgle is the only god that gets the cool mutations, these days!

So can we tell from the new Lizardmen saurus and skink riders if they look like they're sculpted to be rank-friendly?

The skins riders didn't exist in fantasy so no issue. Saurus.... most of them i'd say? hard to say with only a video, but a couple are clearly raising their arms to the side.

You might be able to squeeze them into ranks but it definitely doesn’t appear as though they were designed with that in mind.

I think it'll depend a bit on the size of them, if those are 32mm bases they're mounted on, then they're huge and I doubt they'll fit on 25mm squares even with major surgery to repose them.

 RustyNumber wrote:
So can we tell from the new Lizardmen saurus and skink riders if they look like they're sculpted to be rank-friendly?

Unfortunately, they're totally not designed to be put on square bases for Warhammer Battle. If the old world uses the exact same sizes, that is.

You can tell with the saurus their tails will constantly be in the way of the ones behind for 25x25mm (not even talking about their dynamic poses and shields that will bump in their colleagues on the side), same with the skink cavalry that's way too big for 25x50mm cavalry bases.

None of the AoS releases are sculpted with rank-friendly designs. I honestly believes the Old World project will have specific releases for them, that won't be simple repackaged AoS "new" releases.

Sarouan wrote:
None of the AoS releases are sculpted with rank-friendly designs. I honestly believes the Old World project will have specific releases for them, that won't be simple repackaged AoS "new" releases.

GW will probably need to increase base size or hit the rewind button on scale creep and go back to more reasonably sized models for ranked models.

strigops wrote:
The skins riders didn't exist in fantasy so no issue. Saurus.... most of them i'd say? hard to say with only a video, but a couple are clearly raising their arms to the side.

The first ever cold one riders in the lizardmen army were skinks.
I still have no idea why they decided to create the Sauria cavalry instead and pretend the skink cavalry didn’t exist.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

strigops wrote:
The skins riders didn't exist in fantasy so no issue. Saurus.... most of them i'd say? hard to say with only a video, but a couple are clearly raising their arms to the side.

The first ever cold one riders in the lizardmen army were skinks.
I still have no idea why they decided to create the Sauria cavalry instead and pretend the skink cavalry didn’t exist.

Skink cav went dogs of war. Maybe it had something to do with it.

 triplegrim wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

strigops wrote:
The skins riders didn't exist in fantasy so no issue. Saurus.... most of them i'd say? hard to say with only a video, but a couple are clearly raising their arms to the side.

The first ever cold one riders in the lizardmen army were skinks.
I still have no idea why they decided to create the Sauria cavalry instead and pretend the skink cavalry didn’t exist.

Skink cav went dogs of war. Maybe it had something to do with it.

Skink cavalry did exist with Southland variants and such as something you could convert concurrently with the saurus cavalry.

Square Hammer at NoVa this year

New post about old minis:

This time is Grom, the Paunch as one of the first special character

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/02/01/40-years-of-warhammer-grom-the-paunch-munches-his-way-out-of-the-archives/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=40-years-of-40k

Its silly, since they even mention Heinrich Kemmler in the foot notes...

I wonder if they will be doing 40 of there and on the 40th article announce the old world release date or buy? Like some weird advent calendar!

nightwolf2040 wrote:
I wonder if they will be doing 40 of there and on the 40th article announce the old world release date or buy? Like some weird advent calendar!

Hohum... 36 weeks from now gets us to october 10th, with the possibility of multiple models being shown in a week, which would of course move the end date nearer to now. September-October would allow for a Christmas release and ample time to build hype before that - if it's really the Old World remains to be seen, it could also be some sort of commemorative set or event.

Anyone else think it's weird this Grom has a modern paintjob and a round base? Maybe heralding a future MTO?

 KidCthulhu wrote:
Anyone else think it's weird this Grom has a modern paintjob and a round base? Maybe heralding a future MTO?

New paintjob and base are from July 2018 Made-to-Order but I wouldn't be surprised of another round.

Tsagualsa wrote:

nightwolf2040 wrote:
I wonder if they will be doing 40 of there and on the 40th article announce the old world release date or buy? Like some weird advent calendar!

Hohum... 36 weeks from now gets us to october 10th, with the possibility of multiple models being shown in a week, which would of course move the end date nearer to now. September-October would allow for a Christmas release and ample time to build hype before that - if it's really the Old World remains to be seen, it could also be some sort of commemorative set or event.

It'll be nothing.

Sarouan wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
So can we tell from the new Lizardmen saurus and skink riders if they look like they're sculpted to be rank-friendly?

Unfortunately, they're totally not designed to be put on square bases for Warhammer Battle.

TBF, neither were half the WHFB kits by the end of it.

1. The models being released for AoS are unlikely to double up for Old World.
2. Lustria isn't on the map that they're working on, so I can't help but imagine they're a long ways away from being done for Old World.
3. If you want to use AoS minis for Old World, get ready to be gatekept by all the returning warhammer fantasy grognards.
4. If that doesn't discourage you, do whatever you want, they're your models, but don't be surprised when the AoS models don't fit on the appropriate bases for Old World gaming.

Aww, I missed that back in 2018? That would have been nice to grab...

As a WHFB player, I would love to play WHFB again. I have already come to terms a long time ago that people will be using their round-based minis, and/ or 3D printed/AOS/ 3rd Party minis in the Old World games. I have allot of Warhammer models from 2nd ed to 6th ed, so i am going to be using my models allong side any new models that GW releases for the Old World. I am sure to see Lost Kingdoms' Tomb Kings, AoS Greenskins, 8th Ed Empire, 5th ed Dogs of War and an mix of 5th and 6th ed Dark Elves. The game and the competition is more valuable to me then the models that people use.

I have to say that i do hope that people put in the effort to properly base their models or create movement trays that are the proper size for the unit they are using for that unit. Your skirmishers can stay on round bases, and it would not affect the game very much.

drbored wrote:

4. If that doesn't discourage you, do whatever you want, they're your models, but don't be surprised when the AoS models don't fit on the appropriate bases for Old World gaming.

Well we don't know the TOW base size. Could be 32mm square, 35mm square for infantry, 35x50 for cavalry etc. Nowhere does it say 20/25mm squares are only bases possible for infantry.

If base sizes were forever fixed there wouldn't have been 25mm squares either

I'd love there to be a small line in the book just saying "Hey we wrote these rules with X square bases in mind, however if you want to run your models on rounds, try to do the following!"

Yeah that might annoy some 'purists' out there, but the more people playing TOW and the more love it gets from players, the more support it recieves.

I'd be lying if I said I never used my Chaos Daemons on rounds in WHFB

It would more annoy people without interest in playing against people with AoS Armies who want to do this..

RazorEdge wrote:
It would more annoy people without interest in playing against people with AoS Armies who want to do this..

How so? I mean I understand why people may dislike if someone said "oh these Dark Elf Medusa snake people are wych elves" but they dont have a real analog unit to use as.

Meanwhile if someone rocked up with khorne daemon army, or Cities of sigmar on similar enough bases then hell yeah lets go.

Another classic warhammer is ... namedropped on warhammer community.

40 Years of Warhammer – Grom the Paunch Munches His Way Out of the Archives. Some consider this corpulent warlord to be the first true special character in Warhammer.* This super-sized goblin was a superb metal miniature, but many people first saw him as a cardboard cut-out in the starter set for the fourth edition of Warhammer Fantasy. He led many a horde of monopose goblin spearmen in two dimensions against the haughty High Elves of Ulthuan.

Didnt know he was in the starter set, though I've seen the cardboard model around.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/02/01/40-years-of-warhammer-grom-the-paunch-munches-his-way-out-of-the-archives/

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:
It would more annoy people without interest in playing against people with AoS Armies who want to do this..

How so? I mean I understand why people may dislike if someone said "oh these Dark Elf Medusa snake people are wych elves" but they dont have a real analog unit to use as.

Meanwhile if someone rocked up with khorne daemon army, or Cities of sigmar on similar enough bases then hell yeah lets go.

Besides the Bloodwrack Medusa - Medusa snake ladies - well there are the blood drinking Naga of Kuresh - - sorted

I think some want to remember that this is the official news thread not the chatter thread - the chatter thread is here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/5640/782431.page

i hope the new lizardmen models will be usable in the old world. i loved WH6 /7e. got out of it when i heard of something coming that would nullify new lizardmen models (which wasnt true i guess, just a long time for a large update which is fine).

want to build up lizards again with the new models (but not sure if the new saurus will rank up well).

SF

 Overread wrote:
I think some want to remember that this is the official news thread not the chatter thread - the chatter thread is here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/5640/782431.page

Thank you Overread.

To second this, I am getting incredibly irritated with having to clear out OT chat and spam from this thread. Warnings and suspensions are going to be happening from now on with increased severity.

Them bones them bones, them, dry bones.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/02/06/old-world-development-diary-walk-like-a-nehekharan-in-the-land-of-the-dead/

That would bring a LOT of joy to a lot of people!

Spesh as they only really need to redo Skellingtons, Horsey Skellingtons and port a couple of constructs to plakky.

Skellingtons in particular are easy pickings, as if the Khemrian stylings are a separate sprue, that’s yer Wet Dead Skellingtons in the bag too.

There was a hint on Facebook about Montly News for ToW from now on but this got removed shortly after....

True the Undead had a lot of pretty modern kits when they were retired from sale. So there's a good few that can certainly come back with little to no work needed on them.

Plus its been long enough and the 2nd hand sale prices are nuts on TK models so there's no risk of existing models leaching sales from new ones.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Spesh as they only really need to redo Skellingtons, Horsey Skellingtons and port a couple of constructs to plakky.

Skellingtons in particular are easy pickings, as if the Khemrian stylings are a separate sprue, that’s yer Wet Dead Skellingtons in the bag too.

Don’t the wet dead already have skeleton kits with specific styling? Or has the Vampire Counts skeleton kit of yore been retired?

But related to the actual news, the TK have always been a personal favourite so I’m glad to see they won’t be forgotten again.

That one has been retired, but was still pretty modern so could be, aha, resurrected. So we may see Khemrian specific Skellingtons.

Well, that article at least makes it sound like GW is going to sell Tomb Kings kits again. I wonder if they'll be so bold as to sell the sucky old skeletons for new and improved 2020s prices.

 Overread wrote:
True the Undead had a lot of pretty modern kits when they were retired from sale. So there's a good few that can certainly come back with little to no work needed on them.

Plus its been long enough and the 2nd hand sale prices are nuts on TK models so there's no risk of existing models leaching sales from new ones.

I'd rather have the option to buy the old models than see them remain squatted, since the kits had some nice bits, but modern is not a term you should use in relation to even the newest bobblehead skeletons. Even at release ten years ago the skulls were so large that fleshy people could wear them as skull masks without looking off.

That's not something I want to see from the company that claims to make the best models in the world. But, I guess, The Old World is a side game and GW is cheap, so it's best to brace for that outcome.

I would be very surprised if GW decides to bring old original skeleton warrios/horsemen/chariots for this relaunch.

 Sotahullu wrote:
I would be very surprised if GW decides to bring old original skeleton warrios/horsemen/chariots for this relaunch.

Yep - you want to sell new stuff not have people just dust off old stuff.

Artwork is very nice.

Really hoping that they go for 6th ed style themed armies - vast amounts of lore to draw on from the Nagash trilogy alone, some undead Lizardmen for Rasetra, living nomads for Numas etc, Armoured chariots for K-Sabar etc

Well, this is a bit of a shock.

I'd love to get some real design insight on this project, because I'm not sure what to expect at this point. Did it balloon past the original concept, or was this in the cards all along?

At times its given the impression of a limited run Imperial civil war, and now it feels like they're going stuff everything back in.

Voss wrote:
Well, this is a bit of a shock.

I'd love to get some real design insight on this project, because I'm not sure what to expect at this point. Did it balloon past the original concept, or was this in the cards all along?

At times its given the impression of a limited run Imperial civil war, and now it feels like they're going stuff everything back in.

They've been talking about the old armies all (ish) being present for a long, long time, as well as introducing Kislev & Cathay. Since nearly the first updates. It doesn't sound to me like it's ballooned but who can say?

The focus might be slightly different; the latest article suggests we're not seeing anything geographically outside of the Old World continent itself for the immediate scope (so basically, the 'human' nations and immediate neighbours). High/Dark Elves for example will presumably be expeditionary forces and remnants of their old settlements for the former and raiders for the latter.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
They've been talking about the old armies all (ish) being present for a long, long time, as well as introducing Kislev & Cathay. Since nearly the first updates. It doesn't sound to me like it's ballooned but who can say?

The focus might be slightly different; the latest article suggests we're not seeing anything geographically outside of the Old World continent itself for the immediate scope (so basically, the 'human' nations and immediate neighbours). High/Dark Elves for example will presumably be expeditionary forces and remnants of their old settlements for the former and raiders for the latter.

Depends how you read it.
"Everyone's in and we've been thinking about faction specific rules and probable new models at or near the game's release date" is quite a balloon to "everyone's in because you'll get a 2-page ravening hordes style army list."

Admittedly, that might be a leap too far from what's in the article. But its sort of the implication, especially by picking Tomb Kings. If they'd gone with say Dark Elves, they could just stick square bases back in the kits and be largely done with it.

Voss wrote:
Well, this is a bit of a shock.

I'd love to get some real design insight on this project, because I'm not sure what to expect at this point. Did it balloon past the original concept, or was this in the cards all along?

At times its given the impression of a limited run Imperial civil war, and now it feels like they're going stuff everything back in.

At no point did they say it would be limited to a small area of the setting and focus on certain factions.

Some of the first things we saw for it was entirely new Kislev stuff after all.

Sigh.....So reposting the artwork to try and get back on course

I mean it's called The Old World, because they couldn't just call it Warhammer Fantasy Re-Battles. But it is just Fantasy and everyone can use their old armies so they have to add lore for all the other things not Old World. Lovely bit of artwork and I'm really hoping for some new Tomb King skellies.

Tyel wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
They've been talking about the old armies all (ish) being present for a long, long time, as well as introducing Kislev & Cathay. Since nearly the first updates. It doesn't sound to me like it's ballooned but who can say?

The focus might be slightly different; the latest article suggests we're not seeing anything geographically outside of the Old World continent itself for the immediate scope (so basically, the 'human' nations and immediate neighbours). High/Dark Elves for example will presumably be expeditionary forces and remnants of their old settlements for the former and raiders for the latter.

Depends how you read it.
"Everyone's in and we've been thinking about faction specific rules and probable new models at or near the game's release date" is quite a balloon to "everyone's in because you'll get a 2-page ravening hordes style army list."

Admittedly, that might be a leap too far from what's in the article. But its sort of the implication, especially by picking Tomb Kings. If they'd gone with say Dark Elves, they could just stick square bases back in the kits and be largely done with it.

Some of the most balanced and fun gaming that anyone has ever had was during 6th Edition's start when all we had were the Ravening Hordes Army list. If that's how they do it, then I welcome it.



The continue actually being on topic, I really hope that what they said about doing monthly updates is true.

Still not a huge amount to go on, other than confirming once and for all that TK are going to be re-released.

My personal take away from this article, is that the new game is definitely going to be heavily focused on the areas and armies of the old world only, and places like lustria will be largely ignored (At least until the game has either proven to be a sell out hit, or till they run out of old TK & Empire models to repackage). So for me the old world will still end up being just an easier way to pick up currently OOP kits for playing older editions, and of no real interest as a game. I've too many Lustrian models to just stick to the old world!

If the rumours are true (and we are looking at them just rereleasing kits as they were at the end of 8th Ed) I wonder how they will work the repacked old plastics. I'd be happy if we can get hold of basic units in battalion sets & heroes/monsters separately. But if they do release the 16 skeleton kit, are they going to push the price a lot higher to compensate that most of the AoS kits are being sold as 10 models these days? Or are they going to drop all the old 16 sets to only include 10 models and sell them at the AoS price point?

They seemed to have moved Zandri inland as well.

 Mallo wrote:


They seemed to have moved Zandri inland as well.

They haven't, that's just a faction symbol. The actual city is still in the same place. You can see the pyramid by the Mortis Delta.

well, re-releasing the one kit that was a reason why people did not want to buy in Khemri in 8th in the first place, for a possible higher price (doubt it will be 16 for 34€)

As nice as the fw hh heads have been lately, I hope these new ranges will largely be done in plastic. I don’t want to rely on fw for upgrade parts or special characters.

While I appreciate the update concerning an older army I actually have painted...my favorite part of the entire article was the correct usage of "champing at the bit."

I am very, very tired of hearing people using "chomping".

Yes, I was raised by a mother with a Masters in English.

Yea prices won't be what they were then

I like the artwork.

Seems to be a full relaunch then. Khemri and Bretonnians, the elves, chaos, kislev.

 triplegrim wrote:
I like the artwork.

Seems to be a full relaunch then. Khemri and Bretonnians, the elves, chaos, kislev.

Dwarfs seem like a pretty safe bet as well, even if we haven't seen much about them yet.

We've seen artwork for Boarboyz as well as a bunch of Empire stuff. All art looks like old kits so far.

JSG wrote:
We've seen artwork for Boarboyz as well as a bunch of Empire stuff. All art looks like old kits so far.

Orks and Tomb Kings I am happy with staying the same - I was def hoping for some changes for the Empire.

Haha I just like the numbers on both the Warhammer and AoS Facebook
pages 751 and 951 likes and loves for a faction, which was discountinued. Empire only had 416.

After the Total War: Warhammer Tomb Kings trailer I can only say:

We do not serve! We Rule!

By the way do you guys think GW throw is a treat and release the unrealised Hierotitan for the the Tomb Kings?

I know this is just me, but i would not mind some of the older metals coming back and made to order like the Commissars. I think it would be fine if GW released metal units or even whole army via mail order.

I know it is an unpopular opinion, but some of the old models still hold up against some of the newer plastics and are clearly better than the fine cast models.

Man I hope they don’t rerelease old kits alongside new stuff. The old stuff is seriously out of date now. I hope this is all new from the ground up as far as releases. Let folks use their old armies for sure, but let’s move forward with new kits.

Out of date how?

 Paymaster Games wrote:
I know this is just me, but i would not mind some of the older metals coming back and made to order like the Commissars. I think it would be fine if GW released metal units or even whole army via mail order.

I know it is an unpopular opinion, but some of the old models still hold up against some of the newer plastics and are clearly better than the fine cast models.

It can be different for everyone, but TK skeletons and skeletal horsemen do not fall into that category. They need new stuff. A TK shield (but not weapons) sprue on an even older general undead skeletons kit was never sufficient.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Out of date how?

Generally just being poor sculpts. People were waiting for half the core troops to be redone before WFB got squatted.

 Paymaster Games wrote:
I know this is just me, but i would not mind some of the older metals coming back and made to order like the Commissars. I think it would be fine if GW released metal units or even whole army via mail order.

I know it is an unpopular opinion, but some of the old models still hold up against some of the newer plastics and are clearly better than the fine cast models.

I agree. There are good minis (and bad minis) from every period of Citadel's history. I'd love for them to bring back the good stuff as MTO.

JSG wrote:
We've seen artwork for Boarboyz as well as a bunch of Empire stuff. All art looks like old kits so far.

yeah, this worry me a bit......

JSG wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Out of date how?

Generally just being poor sculpts. People were waiting for half the core troops to be redone before WFB got squatted.

So you'd rather have "dynamic" posed fidgety frailty that shatters the second you try to transport it?


Honestly the Core troops need to be less modular poseable kits and more like the monopose models of old with maybe switchable fronts. Think Chaos Warriors. That is a great way to give people who think armies need individual poses their option and the people learned and intelligent enough to know how regimented troops look and act on an actual battlefield can have a uniform looking and moving regiment.

 Sacredroach wrote:
While I appreciate the update concerning an older army I actually have painted...my favorite part of the entire article was the correct usage of "champing at the bit."

I am very, very tired of hearing people using "chomping".

Yes, I was raised by a mother with a Masters in English.

Did she fail to teach you that language is flexible and evolutive?

Or that champing and chomping are synonyms?

Dread Master wrote:
Man I hope they don’t rerelease old kits alongside new stuff. The old stuff is seriously out of date now. I hope this is all new from the ground up as far as releases. Let folks use their old armies for sure, but let’s move forward with new kits.

If they don't use old kits then that limits seriously how much they put out at first. Even 6 armies all new wouldn't be realistic. Look at hh which is getting lots of plastic sku's yet nowhere near enough. And that's 3rd main game.

We are back to empire civil war with rest lot later(maybe army a year, 2 if lucky)

The advantage of reusing old kits is that, in theory, they wouldn't need to make new molds - get the old ones out of storage, dust them off and do a test cast or two, and they're good to go.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Out of date how?

basically the design, Tomb Kings saw a big design shift between 5th and 8th and in addition there was a change to the frame layout

selling 5th Edition Skeletons with a 6th Edition upgrade along with 8th Edition elite units did not turn out well 10 years ago and it won't be better now

we have seen many times before that armies sell best with a consistent design, (just imagine the Dark Eldar back than would get new vehicles and monsters but the core infantry would have stayed the same)

 Just Tony wrote:
So you'd rather have "dynamic" posed fidgety frailty that shatters the second you try to transport it?

and this is one reason why the old Skeletons need to be replaced, those were the ones that broke if you look at them from the wrong side

the problem was not that the kit was modular but that it was just bones with individual parts
Chaos Warriors war bad as well but in the other direction

as kits from the old times, Chaos Marauders were good, modular but sturdy

Yep. Which is why if you are hoping GW to put out multiple armies on sale(rather than just provide you army list if you happen to have old models) that would be most likely route.

Though paying current prices for old models would sting.

to be clear, we are talking about those models:


release those again for current "cheap" prices of 36€ per Box and you will know instantly why Warhammer died in the first place

Not making as much as marines made.

It was still making profit(or GW were idiots if top-3 selling miniature games were not making profit. Where were they spending sale profits?)

They will 100% bring out two Armies from the start and the rest ist playable via compendium books with Army Lists and Profiles you will use until they replace them when this Army gets a Model release.

They said at the beginning that they will completly rework the Miniatures Ranges.

tneva82 wrote:
Not making as much as marines made.
It was still making profit(or GW were idiots if top-3 selling miniature games were not making profit. Where were they spending sale profits?)

which has nothing to do with what was written above

the "buy in" is during the Army Book release, which GW has shown with numbers during the CH trial (with the only exception being the vanilla Marine box as this one sold with each Marine Codex and not just the vanilla one and this is were the "not as much as Marines" comes from)

but this means, if the Army is not attractive as a whole to get people to buy a new one during book release, it won't sell
existing players buying some of the new kits or new players buying in later when new kits come out are not enough

there is a reason why we see new AoS factions being "complete" and new model releases are with a new book

so if they re-release old armies with the same sales strategy that made them sell bad in the first place it won't work out well
(rather worse, as no one is going to pay the GW price for those core units if they can get better for less and unlike during 8th the market is full of cheaper alternatives for Tomb Kings now)

Personally I use OnePageRules for my rank and file skellys but I will go all in on necropolis knights and stalkers, and some ushabti if they're all rereleased, alongside the sick tomb guard kit!!

 Just Tony wrote:

JSG wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Out of date how?

Generally just being poor sculpts. People were waiting for half the core troops to be redone before WFB got squatted.

So you'd rather have "dynamic" posed fidgety frailty that shatters the second you try to transport it?


Honestly the Core troops need to be less modular poseable kits and more like the monopose models of old with maybe switchable fronts. Think Chaos Warriors. That is a great way to give people who think armies need individual poses their option and the people learned and intelligent enough to know how regimented troops look and act on an actual battlefield can have a uniform looking and moving regiment.

Take a look at the recent middle earth boxes. Loads of new plastic fighters in monopose just-ad-arm style. I think we will see something similar for TOW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Out of date how?

Have a look at this one:



I don't think that's an army GW of today could sell. Even with a better paintjob than I could manage fifteen years ago the models have numerous issues in sculpting quality that customers used to modern GW kits would not likely put up with.

The Casket is probably among the models that held up the best with the details not as crisp as they could be. It also has going for it that it's devoid of swirly crap.

The Bone Giant is converted to look more like the artwork in the army book not just because it looks cool but because the stock version has a silly dancing pose. As sold it's not a very enticing model. It is fairly large though, and detail quality holds up because of it.

The Tomb Scorpions aren't too terrible as far as the beasties go, but the embedded priests have poor detail.

The plastic Skeleton Warriors and Archers are models that were bad in the 90s when they were still fresh, and use an upgrade sprue to give them bows and shields that's not much better. Notably you only get one khopesh for every four models, so a unit equipped as the skeleton in the latest artwork is just not going to happen. Never mind the general size and quality of the weapon sculpts.

Tomb Guard are of moderate quality. Stylistically they're not bad, but the sculpts let them down a bit with too little wrapping (that's not particularly well done at that), casting compromises because of single piece metal bodies (plus separate shield) and a little softer detail than modern plastic is capable of.

The characters have much the same sculpting issues and the swarms do not compare to the decorative scarabs from the sphinx kit for instance.

Tomb Kings had some good metal sculpts twenty years ago when many plastic sculpts were still bulky and unrefined, with some shallow and soft detail. They compared favorably to what was around at the time, but they certainly didn't age well.

And because that's not enough, you have warriors from the 90s that look more like a mercenary regiment than a state funded standing army because the upgrade sprues don't bring their weapon style in line with the rest of the army, a bulk of metal support units from the 00s that have a certain sculpting style that isn't particularly close to the plastic skeletons, and the additions of the 10s that introduced a significantly altered style for Tomb Guard, embiggened models and crisper bobbleheads that tie them in with the plastic skeletons but not the finer heads of metal models. Tomb Kings as they were sold before they were squatted are a considerable mismatch both stylistically and in sculpting and casting quality.

I've said it before, but I just don't see how GW could successfully sell that army for The Old World. You can make a similar case for other armies as well that suffered from incremental model updates, if they got any at all, and GW's refusal to keep Core models up to date that you have to have in your army. And then you look at a gap of almost a decade since Fantasy got exploded and army updates stopped for good and have all the new 40k and AoS sculpts that set a higher bar for sculpting quality, and bringing back old, very much out of date sculpts just doesn't seem like a viable idea.

I'm still curious how GW is planning to tackle that problem. Common sense says that The Old World is too much of an unknown to have the same resources thrown at it as even Horus Heresy, but common sense also says that simply selling old models for new prices isn't going to make the game successful.

So when the latest article says...

The supreme monarch of Nehekhara and the other Tomb Kings are going to be major players in the stories we will tell in Warhammer: the Old World, and it has been wonderful to come back to them after all these years. They’re not technically denizens of the Old World, but their invasions play a key part in the narrative at this time during the history of the setting.

... it implies that GW wants to put the faction in the spotlight to incentivize model sales rather then putting out an index army list or whatever and just giving players with old armies narrative hooks without any intention for model support. If they want to sell models, they need models that sell or else the whole exercise is in vain.

 Geifer wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Out of date how?

I've said it before, but I just don't see how GW could successfully sell that army for The Old World. You can make a similar case for other armies as well that suffered from incremental model updates, if they got any at all, and GW's refusal to keep Core models up to date that you have to have in your army. And then you look at a gap of almost a decade since Fantasy got exploded and army updates stopped for good and have all the new 40k and AoS sculpts that set a higher bar for sculpting quality, and bringing back old, very much out of date sculpts just doesn't seem like a viable idea.

I'm still curious how GW is planning to tackle that problem. Common sense says that The Old World is too much of an unknown to have the same resources thrown at it as even Horus Heresy, but common sense also says that simply selling old models for new prices isn't going to make the game successful.

We also still don't know how their sales model is going to look, what sort of army sizes they envision, and who, and in what medium, is going to produce these units. If the metal models are going to be ported to e.g. Forgeworld resin that is gonna bring a lot of other issues into the mix, like warping, casting errors and all sorts of problems in handling the models in general. And of course the price is a considerable unknown factor - selling old models with new prices would be bad enough, but selling special units at forgeworld prices would make the game basically outright unaffordable if you were set on buying from GW instead of picking up a whole army on the secondary/alternative market.

The more GW tease TOW, the more ambivilent I become. They're not the same company that they were during Fantasy's prime, and I really don't trust them enough to make an agreeable rank&file regimented game without sticking all sorts of gak on top. If GW release sensible boxes at a sensible price point, a regiment per box, it will be a real shock for me. I don't necessarily want big blocks of infantry any more, three ranks of eight is enough, but I want TOW to sit in the right price point. I can see this going south very quickly. :(

It is an interesting one, as we’ve not really had this come up before.

Unlike Necromunda and AT, when WHFB was mothballed, it had a pretty wide range of units in existence. Whilst I can’t speak for metal or Finecast moulds, I think we can reasonably say the plastic moulds, stored properly, just need a dust off and away you go.

Some from a launch point of view, there’s far, far less that needs doing. In a pinch, they could arguably release No New Kits At All.

I very much doubt they would of course. As I think I’ve said before in this thread? I’m expecting a combination of old kits returning, and a few Tent Pole Attention Grabbers.

For Empire? Imperial Knignts and a War Wagon are both low hanging fruit in terms of Shiny News. Great swords, Soldiery etc remain relatively modern, and whilst they have their detractors don’t need their aesthetic modernised.

Khemri? Well they could get away with new Skellingtons, Cavalry, Chariots, Ushabti and Tomb Scorpions. That’s 5 kits, which is a fairly modest release by GW’s standards.

And with a decent range of plastic kits in existence, just OOP? I don’t see why New Stuff would be punted to resin. Yes FW normally does resin, but times have moved on. With the size of their factor, and (I think) in-house tooling? The need for resin for non-character “we’re going to sell a lot of these” type kits is greatly reduced.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tent Pole Attention Grabbers.

With the time shift i'd wager that their initial plan is something like releasing the basic troops in old plastic, e.g. as they were at the time of the great mothballing, and use the characters and special characters as Tentpoles - they do not need to conform to the limits of rank&file as strictly as mainline regiments, they can be done very characterfully with comparatively low investments for new sculpts, they can easily be done in resin, and they can give a whole range a visual theme if you do upgrade packs for the old regiments with style elements you pick up and turn to 11 in the Special characters. Have e.g. Marienburgers with some puffed sleeves, feathered hats and jewellery, and have their Empress run around like a full-blown 17th century dutch noblewoman. Thus, their first couple of years could rest upon the cornerstone of the old plastic regiments and focus on timeline-specific characters in resin, nice upgrade packs in the style of HH Legion kits, and the odd monster, war machine or special unit to flesh out the ranges.

They could just chuck square bases back in the old kits that got round bases however many years back - but I tend to agree that many of these kits are "out of date". Stripped of nostalgia, the quality isn't there with today's models. Especially with kits that were already old by 8th edition.

And this does sort of bleed into Sigmar releases. For example for High Elves, while they may have silly names - the Lumineth Wardens and Dawnriders are amazing models. Would I want to go "go back" to the frankly ancient 6th edition Spearmen and Silver Helms? Not really no. I may not have minded those kits so much 10-15 years ago - but they look decidedly poor today.

Certainly the idea of calling Greatswords (2009), Soldiery (what, State Troops - 2007?) "relatively modern" is just crazy to me. Relatively modern compared to what? That mostly metal army you put together in the mid-90s? The world has moved on somewhat.

Relatively modern compared to the WHFB range.

Whilst I know not everyone like the Soldiery in particular, it’s a solid kit, with a decent number of options.

It already exists, likely in steel mould form, and comfortably does the job intended of it.

And at relaunch, you’re relying on folks dusting off their new armies, and buying a few bits here and there rather than a wave of Entirely New Armies being bought.

Re-done Soldiery isn’t the same as a New War Wagon or Updated Knights.

 Just Tony wrote:

JSG wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Out of date how?

Generally just being poor sculpts. People were waiting for half the core troops to be redone before WFB got squatted.

So you'd rather have "dynamic" posed fidgety frailty that shatters the second you try to transport it?


Honestly the Core troops need to be less modular poseable kits and more like the monopose models of old with maybe switchable fronts. Think Chaos Warriors. That is a great way to give people who think armies need individual poses their option and the people learned and intelligent enough to know how regimented troops look and act on an actual battlefield can have a uniform looking and moving regiment.

No that's just a conversation you're having with yourself. Many of the old core troops just looked like ass. No one wanted the HE spearmen, archers or silverhelms for example and if they were to be redone to an Island of Blood standard that would be perfect.

I'm amazed at how conditioned most of the player base is at rebuying things they've already got. Pavlov would be proud.

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm amazed at how conditioned most of the player base is at rebuying things they've already got. Pavlov would be proud.

Personally it's more a case of wanting to buy things for the first time that are no longer in active production. Much as ol' GW's pricing can be extortionate or baffling (or both) at times, it's still generally better than second hand.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And at relaunch, you’re relying on folks dusting off their new armies, and buying a few bits here and there rather than a wave of Entirely New Armies being bought.

Re-done Soldiery isn’t the same as a New War Wagon or Updated Knights.

I just disagree. GW will want to sell whole new armies - not only at launch, but in the years to come.
I can't imagine the level of ridicule and anti-hype if the big Old World Starter is revealed to include say 2-4 boxes of 2007 era State Troops.

I wouldn't be tempted by a re-release of older kits if there weren't also a framework of new core kits to put them in. And even in that case that would be limited to relatively modern kits like IoB elves, ork boar boys etc.

I certainly wouldn't buy a box of breton knights or kehmri chariots because those are absolutely core to their factions and desperately need a rework by modern standards. I would buy the peasant box or the snake riders though, if the former were to get an overhaul.

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm amazed at how conditioned most of the player base is at rebuying things they've already got. Pavlov would be proud.

You mean buying new models with new sculpts and poses and details and refinements?
Or adding to existing collections with the same models
Or getting new models and building them to a higher standard after 10years of hobbying (at the very least).


I mean yeah of course many are going to choose to upgrade, model building and painting is PART of the hobby. Otherwise we'd be using square bits of cardboard on the table.

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm amazed at how conditioned most of the player base is at rebuying things they've already got. Pavlov would be proud.

I have the feeling that some of these players ditched their armies soon after 8th edition went belly up and now has to rebuild.

While there will be some new plastic kits, they will not be many to start. New Plastic kits are expensive to make compared to metal and resin kits. I would expect a full re-release of several plastic kits for nearly every line, with one or two kits new plastic kits for new units or center pieces, like the War Wagon. To make everything available from the start, i would not be surprised if metal or, gods forbid, finecast models be made available via mail order because of how cheap it is to run these models.

As to completely new models for whole armies, other than the new armies of Kislev and Cathey, i do not see this happening at all. Mostly because they have not done this with AoS, Cities of Sigmar, Lizardmen, Chaos, and Greenkins still use allot of the old kits. Expectations on new models needs to tempered.

 Paymaster Games wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm amazed at how conditioned most of the player base is at rebuying things they've already got. Pavlov would be proud.

I have the feeling that some of these players ditched their armies soon after 8th edition went belly up and now has to rebuild.

While there will be some new plastic kits, they will not be many to start. New Plastic kits are expensive to make compared to metal and resin kits. I would expect a full re-release of several plastic kits for nearly every line, with one or two kits new plastic kits for new units or center pieces, like the War Wagon. To make everything available from the start, i would not be surprised if metal or, gods forbid, finecast models be made available via mail order because of how cheap it is to run these models.

As to completely new models for whole armies, other than the new armies of Kislev and Cathey, i do not see this happening at all. Mostly because they have not done this with AoS, Cities of Sigmar, Lizardmen, Chaos, and Greenkins still use allot of the old kits. Expectations on new models needs to tempered.

I think we really do need to know what GW wants and thinks for the game, I could see a small 3 kits per army release for a lot at the start being enough if done well.
Heroes themselves can be in the kits, then sell some extra resin ones as well. And rerelease some of the standout kits, and a special run for some other ones for each army.
Do the first campaign book for games 500 to 1000, and write the rules so in small games units of minimum size are viable and people can buy into it at reasonable prices and not get stuck starting with a massive army all at once.

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm amazed at how conditioned most of the player base is at rebuying things they've already got. Pavlov would be proud.

For me, it's not so much buying things I've already got but the opportunity to grab kits I didn't get (and kicked myself for missing out on).

I really like The Old World setting and follow this project with great interrest.
But honestly, there is no way I will start a new army. I wont be fooled by nostalgia. I know how tedious it is to build up 100+ spearmen to access fun units, and the frustration of trying to manouver them correctly, and the anger when you realise your cavalry is basicly spearmen that take up to much space. And then the foot of Mork thrash half your sword masters unit in one stomp.
Love the setting, hate the game.

That sounds like a 'late' Warhammer issue though.

I mean, WFB was 'more fun' in earlier editions - pre the push to massive units and game breaking magic...

Now that doesn't mean GW will "get it right" this time either, but hope remains!

(For now...)

Should it hit the stores it will have a lesser appeal as a game because R&F has become old-fashioned for the younger generation. So 40+ whales will be again the target demographic.

I don't think I know a single ASOIAF or Conquest player under 40, and I just spent a weekend at a convention playing both of those R&F games.

have to say the only R&F games I have seen younger people playing was Warhammer Fantasy during 6th/7th and Kings of War now

I got me some pistoliers last month, and they came with oval and square basses. And they still look good. I have a lot of wfb army's but will buy some models that i didnt get at the time wfb was a thing

For me eventually it will boil down to two things regarding to future models:

1. Close as possible to classic 6th to 8th edition design
2. Made out of plastic meterial, I dislike to work with resin.

Game wise should be fun and easy to pick up and could have a flavor of wackyness ( like animosity, ancestral grudge, crumvling ), while it should have some amount of complexity.

I love Oldhammer, I do not want rules bloat to sell models.

To me, Kings of War really has a lot going for it....except model design. Also, ASOIAF scratches the need for more complexity. If GW was looking for a place to find a happy medium I think between those two games would be great. They will wind up rehashing the old world just to take us old players out behind the wood-shed and put us out of our misery.

The inclusivity of the game for old timers as well as promising new minis for those that don't have or want the old miniatures will be one of the factors that make or break this game. Pricing (cost of entry) and rules are the other two things that will drive (or not drive) it's success.

So far personally I liked what I've seen. It's been all fluff to this point of course but it feels more grounded in reality than the mortal realms.

What's interesting to me is this article hints at rules/rule design for the undead. First time I've seen it mentioned at all in the preview articles (focused on the fluff) and of course they don't give us any substance with it, but clearly they are designing the minis/rules/fluff concurrently. Wouldn't surprise me if they just kept spoon feeding us fluff updates for the rest of 2023 and started revealing ideas on the rule system next year.

Well I can say that if it requires 200 basic skeleton warriors to fill the core for Tomb Kings with kits that come in boxes of 10 warriors with needless details and costing 40-50€ a box then I can say that it is not fun at all.

So, to get closer to the actual news/article again, did anyone else notice that they seem to refer to an actual spell/ability by name there?
Maybe they are closer to a release than we thought, if they have spell references to name drop…

 Mr_Rose wrote:
So, to get closer to the actual news/article again, did anyone else notice that they seem to refer to an actual spell/ability by name there?
Maybe they are closer to a release than we thought, if they have spell references to name drop…

They also talk about rules and balance - which suggests that they have got quite far.

Tyel wrote:They could just chuck square bases back in the old kits that got round bases however many years back

I have a feeling that if they're rebooting things after X years, they should go 25mm for all infantry.

And this does sort of bleed into Sigmar releases. For example for High Elves, while they may have silly names - the Lumineth Wardens and Dawnriders are amazing models. Would I want to go "go back" to the frankly ancient 6th edition Spearmen and Silver Helms? Not really no. I may not have minded those kits so much 10-15 years ago - but they look decidedly poor today.

I would love to finally get updated, modern, properly-Ulthuan spearmen and archers, but it feels like a pipe dream after all this time.

Fayric wrote:I really like The Old World setting and follow this project with great interrest.
But honestly, there is no way I will start a new army. I wont be fooled by nostalgia. I know how tedious it is to build up 100+ spearmen to access fun units

I would love to finally get updated, modern, properly-Ulthuan spearmen and archers for Dragon Rampant.

I personally find The Old World to be in a weird situation, where my first assumption would be that anyone of suitable age to have loved the original Old World setting of WHFB surely has already moved on to playing one of the several different rank n' flank games that are currently out there, and they just keep the (awesome) Warhammer fiction alive.

Same thing with Mordheim. Tons of fans either still just play the old game, or use different company's rulesets with the OG game setting.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think nostalgia is going to be enough to being me back to GW on this.

Total War Warhammer and the Vermintide games have had a lot of influence on newer people interested in the Old World. I picked up Cities of Sigmar to paint a Talabheim inspired army after play TWWH 1 when it first came out. When Tomb Kings were added to TWWH 2 I searched around for cheap bitz to make a TK inspired Legions of Nagash force.
The interest I would say is definitely there it just needs to be capitalised on before TWWH passes out of current game status.

Total War: Warhammer certainly helped the popularity of the setting. My principal concern is the size of armies/regiments and the functional size of game that the rules are designed for. In order for me to buy in on this I'd really want for unit sizes to be significantly smaller, and the game to be functional at smaller point totals. Ideally I'd like to be able to actually play a normal length, enjoyable game with the contents of an average starter box without it sort of falling apart mechanically. Now, if that could be accomplished with the game scaling well up to 2,000+ point armies as well, that'd be something that would interest me.

It's just not economically reasonable to expect 30 model units to be the minimum and something upwards of 40 or 50 to be 'combat effective'.

Edit: I can paint 40-50 models and have an entire or close to entire 40k army, by comparison.

Ignispacium wrote:
Total War: Warhammer certainly helped the popularity of the setting. My principal concern is the size of armies/regiments and the functional size of game that the rules are designed for. In order for me to buy in on this I'd really want for unit sizes to be significantly smaller, and the game to be functional at smaller point totals. Ideally I'd like to be able to actually play a normal length, enjoyable game with the contents of an average starter box without it sort of falling apart mechanically. Now, if that could be accomplished with the game scaling well up to 2,000+ point armies as well, that'd be something that would interest me.

It's just not economically reasonable to expect 30 model units to be the minimum and something upwards of 40 or 50 to be 'combat effective'.

Edit: I can paint 40-50 models and have an entire or close to entire 40k army, by comparison.

And yet if you run a Tyranid, Ork or Imperial Guard infantry heavy army you're no way near done for 2K points with 40models.

So big model counts do work.
The problem Old World had before was a few things

1) The game didn't "work" well until you hit at least 1.5K points for most armies. With many of them being totally broken below 1K points and the game not even really working or being all that engaging at, say, 500points.

2) As the game dwindled in popularity the number of people remaining were those more heavily invested. So they had a 2K army and wanted to use a 2K army and the games you saw would all be 2K armies etc... So newbies had a huge hill to climb to join that 2K group (or at least hit the 1.5K group).

3) GW did go overboard with numbers. Skaven are a fantastic example of taking the idea and going just too far. You needed legions of slaves for many ideal forces; which were mostly on the table to die ,but required huge numbers.



Now you can address these problems without removing big infantry blocks; in fact we've seen GW do it twice with AoS and 40K
They've marketed, for both, smaller scale skirmish games under their own rules and under their own marketing. Yes Killteam has been around for decades, but right now its not just a page in the book, its got its own book; its own starter sets; its own marketing; game leagues and all. Same for Warcry and Underworlds in AoS.
All 3 of those are ways to get people into the game with really small model counts. Heck all of them have a "1 box army" approach to marketing. You can expand from that, but 1 standard infantry box gets you going - 5 models for Underworld - perhaps 10 or so for Warcry and Killteam.

They've scaled elements of the core rules for different point values. Not huge changes, but they've made adjustments to 1K, 1.5K and 2K systems to try and make the games work better. IT also helps that functionally both 40K and AoS are "skirmish movement" style games rather than big block styles.

The final point is just getting an active playerbase, engaging and growing it and marketing the games. Focusing attention on them to keep them hot, current and played.



When you step back you can also see that as most wargames mature they scale up in model count. The armies we play with today are VAST compared to what they were 20 years ago in 40K. Longer term customers buy more models; longer term games introduce more models and niches and players want to use them; they want to see their stuff on the table. So army size often creeps up. Warmachine did it; Dystopian Wars is slowly doing it; 40K did it, AoS interestingly has gone backward this edition as GW came down insanely hard on big infantry blocks; but I think part of that is AoS being newer and also several armies being very tiny compared to others which are huge so in part some forces are just "spam 1 model" types (eg flesheaters). So there's good reason for GW to push back a bit against growth and curtail it for a time to let the game steady itself and then push for more later.




But in general Old World is also going to be another 30K; so GW is already thinking of it as a niche. A big infantry block niche to fill. If it takes off in a huge way then model counts weren't a concern; if it only grows so big and doesn't any more then perhaps that's one component of the issues it might face

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm amazed at how conditioned most of the player base is at rebuying things they've already got. Pavlov would be proud.

Personally it's more a case of wanting to buy things for the first time that are no longer in active production. Much as ol' GW's pricing can be extortionate or baffling (or both) at times, it's still generally better than second hand.

And there's a difference between the expectation of simply putting kits back into production and redesigning and tooling up molds for 16 factions or so to launch a game. The general GW customer mindset nowadays would be the latter.

Overread wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm amazed at how conditioned most of the player base is at rebuying things they've already got. Pavlov would be proud.

You mean buying new models with new sculpts and poses and details and refinements?
Or adding to existing collections with the same models
Or getting new models and building them to a higher standard after 10years of hobbying (at the very least).


I mean yeah of course many are going to choose to upgrade, model building and painting is PART of the hobby. Otherwise we'd be using square bits of cardboard on the table.

Why is all that mutually exclusive? Them rereleasing older models so people who weren't around to get them the first time can start an army doesn't conflict with making new units for existing armies or what I will assume will be Cathay and Kislev forces out the gate.

My deal is that my armies have monopose WHQ/Talisman/4th Ed. plastic models in them, and once painted up don't stick out NEARLY as much as the "NeW mOdElS eVeRy SiX mOnThS!!!!!1!!!!@!!!" crowd would have you believe. Basically it's the iPhone marketing mentality at work here. Replace your essentially brand-new thing with this brand-newer thing that is only marginally different but new.



And why does everyone rule out the possibility that people may actually get a second/third/tenth army during this time?

Paymaster Games wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm amazed at how conditioned most of the player base is at rebuying things they've already got. Pavlov would be proud.

I have the feeling that some of these players ditched their armies soon after 8th edition went belly up and now has to rebuild.

While there will be some new plastic kits, they will not be many to start. New Plastic kits are expensive to make compared to metal and resin kits. I would expect a full re-release of several plastic kits for nearly every line, with one or two kits new plastic kits for new units or center pieces, like the War Wagon. To make everything available from the start, i would not be surprised if metal or, gods forbid, finecast models be made available via mail order because of how cheap it is to run these models.

As to completely new models for whole armies, other than the new armies of Kislev and Cathey, i do not see this happening at all. Mostly because they have not done this with AoS, Cities of Sigmar, Lizardmen, Chaos, and Greenkins still use allot of the old kits. Expectations on new models needs to tempered.

Some probably purged. Others, like my niece and some of the posters at classichammer are new players brought in by TW:WH or exposure to the fiction. They'll be starting from scratch as well, and basically reissuing the old Battalion sets would be the simplest way to go.

KidCthulhu wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm amazed at how conditioned most of the player base is at rebuying things they've already got. Pavlov would be proud.

For me, it's not so much buying things I've already got but the opportunity to grab kits I didn't get (and kicked myself for missing out on).

You and me both. You already know I intend to build one of each WFB army, so this would facilitate it without me scouring the aftermarket.

 Overread wrote:
1) The game didn't "work" well until you hit at least 1.5K points for most armies. With many of them being totally broken below 1K points and the game not even really working or being all that engaging at, say, 500points.

2) As the game dwindled in popularity the number of people remaining were those more heavily invested. So they had a 2K army and wanted to use a 2K army and the games you saw would all be 2K armies etc... So newbies had a huge hill to climb to join that 2K group (or at least hit the 1.5K group).

3) GW did go overboard with numbers. Skaven are a fantastic example of taking the idea and going just too far. You needed legions of slaves for many ideal forces; which were mostly on the table to die ,but required huge numbers.

I feel the game "didn't work" at say 1k points if you can bring a 250~ point rare monster that is functionally unkillable by a bunch of smallish unspecialised units. Or - perhaps even worse and you can do this with anything - you can have a 500+ point death star that likewise will just walk around the table being invincible. Especially in 8th where you potentially charge it, only for it to fight first and insta-gib your unit.

I feel the answer, which might hurt purists, is in the rules.
Don't facilitate deathstars - have size caps to units. You don't need to allow people to take bricks of 40 White Lions/Grave Guard etc - or even 100 goblins/skaven slaves as 8th edition sort of encouraged. Likewise, having more concretely defined what a unit can look like, you can take a more balanced view on the relative power of monsters and characters (and 6th-8th edition balancing was all over the place because GW never did balance passes back then). At the same time however, I don't think you want to encourage a reversion to 6th-7th Cavalry hammer. I think blocks of infantry should be the "core" of the game. Unsupported Cavalry and Monsters breaking such should be the exception rather than the rule. So I'd keep step up but return to charges striking first. You can then look at Magic without having to factor it as "the counter" to inevitable death stars etc.

There's probably an argument on points to do what's happened in 40k. I.E. bring up the points of cheap models. Goblins/Skaven don't need to be 2-3 points a model, to the point where you can bring hundreds in a 1.5-2k point game. I've got 200+ night goblins at home, so I can sort of relate. But I have no idea how I found the time to paint them all those years ago, its not something I'd ever contemplate doing today.

With these changes Timmy won't walk into a shop and be told he "needs" 40 Halberdiers and 3-4 characters to serve as the base of an Empire army he though might be cool. Which unsurprisingly prompts "that's too much, I'll buy a box of space marines instead."

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

IIRC in 8th there was a hard counter to deathstars, the magic system

the irony of many event packs mucking with the magic system as it was "overpowered" (and be honest, it was broken to heck), but then having to put in all sorts of other rules as a result

I found the game, if you actually played what was provided worked ok - the point on needing about 2k before it worked well is well made though

Tyel wrote:

 Overread wrote:
1) The game didn't "work" well until you hit at least 1.5K points for most armies. With many of them being totally broken below 1K points and the game not even really working or being all that engaging at, say, 500points.

2) As the game dwindled in popularity the number of people remaining were those more heavily invested. So they had a 2K army and wanted to use a 2K army and the games you saw would all be 2K armies etc... So newbies had a huge hill to climb to join that 2K group (or at least hit the 1.5K group).

3) GW did go overboard with numbers. Skaven are a fantastic example of taking the idea and going just too far. You needed legions of slaves for many ideal forces; which were mostly on the table to die ,but required huge numbers.

I feel the game "didn't work" at say 1k points if you can bring a 250~ point rare monster that is functionally unkillable by a bunch of smallish unspecialised units. Or - perhaps even worse and you can do this with anything - you can have a 500+ point death star that likewise will just walk around the table being invincible. Especially in 8th where you potentially charge it, only for it to fight first and insta-gib your unit.

I feel the answer, which might hurt purists, is in the rules.
Don't facilitate deathstars - have size caps to units. You don't need to allow people to take bricks of 40 White Lions/Grave Guard etc - or even 100 goblins/skaven slaves as 8th edition sort of encouraged. Likewise, having more concretely defined what a unit can look like, you can take a more balanced view on the relative power of monsters and characters (and 6th-8th edition balancing was all over the place because GW never did balance passes back then). At the same time however, I don't think you want to encourage a reversion to 6th-7th Cavalry hammer. I think blocks of infantry should be the "core" of the game. Unsupported Cavalry and Monsters breaking such should be the exception rather than the rule. So I'd keep step up but return to charges striking first. You can then look at Magic without having to factor it as "the counter" to inevitable death stars etc.

There's probably an argument on points to do what's happened in 40k. I.E. bring up the points of cheap models. Goblins/Skaven don't need to be 2-3 points a model, to the point where you can bring hundreds in a 1.5-2k point game. I've got 200+ night goblins at home, so I can sort of relate. But I have no idea how I found the time to paint them all those years ago, its not something I'd ever contemplate doing today.

With these changes Timmy won't walk into a shop and be told he "needs" 40 Halberdiers and 3-4 characters to serve as the base of an Empire army he though might be cool. Which unsurprisingly prompts "that's too much, I'll buy a box of space marines instead."

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Agre with a lot of this - have some TW style rock/paper/scossors gameplay - so spear (and similar weapons)s are "anti-cavalry/large" - in reality charging cav into a spear formation, if you could even get the horse to even do it was a a bad idea - now yes we have dinsoaurs and boars in Warhammer as mounts but still applies to a certain degree. same thing with anti-infantry, armour piercing etc.

whatever they do removing "I won in the list building phase" is a must

leopard wrote:
whatever they do removing "I won in the list building phase" is a must

Yes and no

I think the key is that any game with army building is going to have an aspect of understanding how the game works and how to build a working army within that game. If you just spam all 1 unit on the table it might win because of min-max but it might also lose because it lacks a lot of tools and options that a more comprehensive list brings.

So basically I think that list building should always be important



AT the same time I agree that the game balance should ideally be where tweaking the list brings minor advantage not major advantage. So when you put a good and a decent list down against each other the difference in mathematical performance is minor. You gain little advantages here and there and the REAL test is how you use it on the table. The player's choices, actions and contribution to the game.
This is something that escapes GW entirely balance wise. GW tends to lean toward powerful cinematic combos (either intentionally or by missing them entirely during design). Then countering that with either tougher units, more units or making even more powerful combos against it. The result is an arms race codex to codex which fails because we only get 1 codex per edition typically (sometimes two but its rare). So you only get 1 arms race per faction.

There are also those who defend this because they like the idea of finding the "I win" list. Or (often) copying it from online. They like the idea that they can buy the BEST army and win. They dislike the idea of minor power variation because to them that means they don't have an I win button to press. They don't have a simple single list to use; they don't have a clear way to victory.




I liken it to Magic the Gathering which 100% has very insane power variations between decks. MTG gets away with this in part because
1) Matches are fast. You can complete several games of MTG in the time it takes to just setup a 40K game.
2) The rules are tight. Yes the combos are insane, but the underlaying rules are generally very straight forward and tightly put together and they are regularly revised to that standard.
3) The cards cost nothing to make function. You open the pack and the card works - you don't have to clean it, build it, prime it, paint it.

If you try and bring all that into a wargame it fails because many people only have one or two armies; they don't want to build the newest power army and they can't even afford it - not just in money but in time as well.
So they have their army and if GW makes their army perform badly mathematically and makes another army perform WAY better mathematically, then that's a power struggle the player cannot overcome. It takes the player out of the equation and makes the list building the most important aspect.

my thinking is not that list building skilfully should not be rewarded, it certainly should be, but far too often it seemed that the actual game was pretty pointless

yes you need a chance to make a mistake but far too often it was basically "ha ha you lose"

comes down to stuff needing to be able to be closer in lethality or more rock-paper-scissors where everything has a weakness every faction can exploit - rewarding a flexible army

I have an entire 5th ed starter box stuffed with 5th ed Brets, metal infantry, plastic archers and knights, all the old models. I'll be happy to be able to break them out and paint them up and field them.

That being said, my experience in that 5th ed+ era was also that armies often won not only at list building, but at army set up. Set up a unit in a bad spot, or your army, and you lost. Reforming an army line was not something that was easy to do.

I actually enjoyed AoS when it first came out with my Brets, the unit sizes felt good, the army "flowed" as a cavalry army would, without the 'must be in a wedge or box formation' and we played many thematic battles (against my friend's orcs).

So I'd be happy with something more along the lines of AsoIaF style movement and play, being able to move units, and redeploy, without all of the gotcha stuff that sideboards, special characters with abilities, strategems, CCG like mechanics, and other nonsense brings.

Heck, even bringing some of the ideas and implementations from Warhammer Historical (countercharges, etc.) wouldn't be out of place, they'd just have to figure out how to balance the magical and monster elements.

All that being said, I'd also likely play with whatever base rules (hopefully a Ravening Hordes style army list) because GW won't be able to keep my attention with whatever comes out after.

have to say the one thing I really didn't like about WHFB was how the safest place for a character to stand was generally alongside an enemy unit where they were impossible to charge

Yeah, there needs to be some sort of 'move into combat' to prevent such shenanigans, instead of the obsession with always charging forward

Overread wrote:
IT also helps that functionally both 40K and AoS are "skirmish movement" style games rather than big block styles.

This would help in larger games?

But in general Old World is also going to be another 30K; so GW is already thinking of it as a niche.

Honestly that might be to it's advantage, in a way. Less reliance on it being a big moneyspinner might mean less foisting of rules churn and built-in imbalance on it.

Tyel wrote:Don't facilitate deathstars - have size caps to units. You don't need to allow people to take bricks of 40 White Lions/Grave Guard etc - or even 100 goblins/skaven slaves as 8th edition sort of encouraged.

Scratch the 25mm bases - every unit on a 100mm square.

Mr Morden wrote:Agre with a lot of this - have some TW style rock/paper/scossors gameplay - so spear (and similar weapons)s are "anti-cavalry/large"

This is every other rank 'n' flank game. Did WFB end up with nothing like that, at the end?

 Vermis wrote:

Overread wrote:
IT also helps that functionally both 40K and AoS are "skirmish movement" style games rather than big block styles.

This would help in larger games?

It helps when you want to have the same core rules system and style of play spread out over many scales of game.

When you take a movement tray game down to only 10 or 15 models per side you almost have to use an entirely different movement system. You don't have rank and file any more unless you go for one model on a movement tray of the size of a larger number of models.

So when you've a skirmish movement system you can maintain the same style of play over a wider range of numbers of models per side. Killteam to 40K at 2K uses similar movement systems. Same as when you go into AoS and you have Warcry or you go from 500 to 1000 to 1500 to 2K games. Maintaining the same style of play and tweaking it for the different scale of the game means that players get a similar experience, just with more.

However to do the same with movement trays is trickier and we are back to "it doesn't really work below 1.5K" type situations. Certainly visually you can't get the same experience of rank and file with 1 model on a movement tray type deal.


So yes being Skirmish style in movement helps scale the game size whilst maintaining a similar style of play.
I do agree once you hit 2K points nad armies like Tyranids or Skaven, movement trays can suddenly start to become really attractive. At the same time you have to change how the game works to make them work - AoS has no such system whilst 40K does at least have Apoc style rules.

There is justification to consider adding movement tray movement into 2K scale games, but you also have to accept that as soon as you do that the style of game changes. Terrain density has to change and its shape and type also has to change to facilitate rank and file movement; the way you treat infantry changes etc...

 Overread wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

Overread wrote:
IT also helps that functionally both 40K and AoS are "skirmish movement" style games rather than big block styles.

This would help in larger games?

It helps when you want to have the same core rules system and style of play spread out over many scales of game.

When you take a movement tray game down to only 10 or 15 models per side you almost have to use an entirely different movement system. You don't have rank and file any more unless you go for one model on a movement tray of the size of a larger number of models.

So when you've a skirmish movement system you can maintain the same style of play over a wider range of numbers of models per side. Killteam to 40K at 2K uses similar movement systems. Same as when you go into AoS and you have Warcry or you go from 500 to 1000 to 1500 to 2K games. Maintaining the same style of play and tweaking it for the different scale of the game means that players get a similar experience, just with more.

However to do the same with movement trays is trickier and we are back to "it doesn't really work below 1.5K" type situations. Certainly visually you can't get the same experience of rank and file with 1 model on a movement tray type deal.


So yes being Skirmish style in movement helps scale the game size whilst maintaining a similar style of play.
I do agree once you hit 2K points nad armies like Tyranids or Skaven, movement trays can suddenly start to become really attractive. At the same time you have to change how the game works to make them work - AoS has no such system whilst 40K does at least have Apoc style rules.

There is justification to consider adding movement tray movement into 2K scale games, but you also have to accept that as soon as you do that the style of game changes. Terrain density has to change and its shape and type also has to change to facilitate rank and file movement; the way you treat infantry changes etc...

We played 6th Ed. at 1,000 points quite often and had no issues, so your suggestion that it doesn't work below 1.5K is nowhere near true unless you're focusing on 8th, which, in my humble opinion, didn't work at higher point levels either.

Even Border Patrols at 500pts were nice games. We had quite a few match-rematch (play each opponent twice, switching armies in the secod game) in Poland using those, and those were always pipular event (with the exception of powergamers who didn't want to admit their results were from broken armies, not gameplay skill so they usually skipped those )

1000 pts at 6th edition were great fun.

A hero & a wizard. Three troops. A cav unit and a war machine. Leaves enough points for a rare or some flanker.

I just wonder if Old world will follow 6th or 7th comp style. Picks or percentages. Kind of hope for picks due to avoiding msu and making list building easier.

I also feel we might get what Saint Stillman feared years ago, 12 armies with different flavor of monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry, a war altar on wheels and some great weapon special infantry. No real diversity. Perhaps dwarves, skaven and undead will keep their gimmicks. Not really against it, just a vibe I get from the developers diaries they keep releasingm but then again, I've been reading alot of warhammer armies projects lately, and they are very formulaic.

Hope weapon teams remains a thing.

It would be nice if TOW is a lot more like 6th. I keep trying to get my Oldhammer friends to go back to 6th, but they like some of crazier aspects of 8th that I'm not a fan of.

Well, WFB ended for me with 7th. Random charges was the one single thing that made me drop the game.

 KidCthulhu wrote:
It would be nice if TOW is a lot more like 6th. I keep trying to get my Oldhammer friends to go back to 6th, but they like some of crazier aspects of 8th that I'm not a fan of.

What, specifically, if I may ask?

 Scottywan82 wrote:
What, specifically, if I may ask?

Specifically? My biggest gripe would have to be the scale/size of the games itself.

Many of my models individually got increasingly worse stats but a drop in points as a transparent cash grab to sell more models.
"Yeah, they suck now but they cost less points so you can field twice as many!"

I shouldn't have to run a unit of 50 models when two editions ago, 20 models were just as effective.I'm also not a fan of the Hordes rule.

I also don't like how my group runs a Lord in 1500 point games and that if I don't take a Lv4 wizard, I basically "lose" the Magic Phase.
Yes, I know that's more of an issue with my group than anything, but the ruleset allows for that playing.

I just miss when I could run a few blocks of infantry, a wizard or two, maybe some cavalry, and have an enjoyable time where the battles were evenly matched (and not hideously one-sided battles punctuated by wargear "gotchas").

So if the scale of the battles for TOW are more like 5th or 6th than 8th, I'll be very happy.

 KidCthulhu wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:
What, specifically, if I may ask?

Specifically? My biggest gripe would have to be the scale/size of the games itself.

Many of my models individually got increasingly worse stats but a drop in points as a transparent cash grab to sell more models.
"Yeah, they suck now but they cost less points so you can field twice as many!"

I shouldn't have to run a unit of 50 models when two editions ago, 20 models were just as effective.I'm also not a fan of the Hordes rule.

I also don't like how my group runs a Lord in 1500 point games and that if I don't take a Lv4 wizard, I basically "lose" the Magic Phase.
Yes, I know that's more of an issue with my group than anything, but the ruleset allows for that playing.

I just miss when I could run a few blocks of infantry, a wizard or two, maybe some cavalry, and have an enjoyable time where the battles were evenly matched (and not hideously one-sided battles punctuated by wargear "gotchas").

So if the scale of the battles for TOW are more like 5th or 6th than 8th, I'll be very happy.

That all makes a lot of sense! Thanks for the reply.

 Overread wrote:

It helps when you want to have the same core rules system and style of play spread out over many scales of game.

When you take a movement tray game down to only 10 or 15 models per side you almost have to use an entirely different movement system.

If you take WFB down to 10-15 models per side I would say you have to use an entirely different game. But isn't that what Mordheim achieved, or even the skirmish rules in the back of the 6th ed book?

Killteam to 40K at 2K uses similar movement systems.

But aren't these treated as different games, too?

I used to think that having core infantry in blocks of 10/15 was a bit stupid (spot the 8th Ed player huh) but if you accept each model as an abstract larger number of soldiers then it's fine. So I've come around to lower model counts for a rank and file game.

So do we all agree the ARISE! emphasis in the Tomb Kings article is just a nod to the Total Warhammer voice lines, and not a gameplay hint?

 RustyNumber wrote:
I used to think that having core infantry in blocks of 10/15 was a bit stupid (spot the 8th Ed player huh) but if you accept each model as an abstract larger number of soldiers then it's fine. So I've come around to lower model counts for a rank and file game.

Rank and file games with low model counts simply look silly on the table and in game mechanics (having movement maneuvers like in old battle for a line of 4 infantry models is stupid - people don't move like trucks in small numbers). Better play smaller scale with multiple models like in 15-10-6mm on a single base in that case, it gives a better look for the mass battles they're supposed to represent. And it's cheaper too.

So do we all agree the ARISE! emphasis in the Tomb Kings article is just a nod to the Total Warhammer voice lines, and not a gameplay hint?

Pretty much. It's useless to give hints for gameplays when it's not even revealed / set in stone, anyway.

for grand strategic games it does not really matter if it is 28mm or 15/10mm

if there are 24 models in a unit that represents 500 soldiers, or 80 models does not make a big difference
neither looks like 500 soldiers, both take the same space on the table and painting is not easier (just different)

it is simply just why what you are used to or not
hence the 16 model minimum unit in Warhammer 6th was still good as a "regiment" and the armies looked impressive

going with larger units always made it look less impressive on the "army" scale for me (hence I neither liked the gameplay nor the look of 8th Edition)

 RustyNumber wrote:
So do we all agree the ARISE! emphasis in the Tomb Kings article is just a nod to the Total Warhammer voice lines, and not a gameplay hint?

It might be a hint. When the army book got cruddaced in 8th ed reanimation was changed from the spell Djedra's Incantation of Summoning to a passive effect attached to all buff spells in the new Lore of Nehekhara. It's conceivable that they keep that summoning mechanic and rename it from The Restless Dead to Arise!

Certainly makes more sense than calling a spell Incantation of Arise! and might serve to keep Vampire and Tomb Kings mechanics separate, with the former getting dedicated mass summoning spells and the latter small scale healing attached to buff spells.

I don't remember that to work very well in 8th, but who knows, Tomb Kings being worse than Vampire Counts is a tradition after all. Might be worth keeping as far as the rules writers are concerned.

 kodos wrote:
for grand strategic games it does not really matter if it is 28mm or 15/10mm

if there are 24 models in a unit that represents 500 soldiers, or 80 models does not make a big difference
neither looks like 500 soldiers, both take the same space on the table and painting is not easier (just different)

it is simply just why what you are used to or not
hence the 16 model minimum unit in Warhammer 6th was still good as a "regiment" and the armies looked impressive

going with larger units always made it look less impressive on the "army" scale for me (hence I neither liked the gameplay nor the look of 8th Edition)

It doesn't matter simply if your focus is on the game and not how it looks on the table. For you can also use papercraft or tokens to play the battle as well, and it will do the exact same job. Will be looking ugly on pictures, but hey if that's not the focus or you don't intend to take any, why bother.

and if 24 models in a unit look ugly this is on you and not something that generally applies to all

having an army of several equal sized units looks better for me than just 2 larger units several and small attachments

and it does not look much different if this is 15 or 28mm on the unit level
15mm looks better if you can get more units on the table, hence when the units decrease in size as well

 kodos wrote:
and if 24 models in a unit look ugly this is on you and not something that generally applies to all

Oh no, it looks fine to me. But the original post I was reacting to was not about 24.

I was just talking about low model counts in rank-and-file game systems. And I mean low, like the number of Mordheim-like skirmish games. Those look non-sensical, to me and the "one model actually represent a hundred" is just sounding like an excuse for something else, to me.

I mean, if being cheap is a matter, better go the full way like papercraft and not even bother with models at all. Your wallet will thank you even more.

he mentioned 10/15 models per block, which was the numbers used during 6th as the minimum "mass" infantry was 16 and most elites used units of 10 or 12

also 10 to 15 models is not uncommon in other R&F games, specially for light infantry formations or more dynamic models
(there are some nice Napoleonic Battalions out there with 10-15 models in running/attack poses)

and no, no one will play and R&F game with 15 models total in an army

 kodos wrote:
he mentioned 10/15 models per block, which was the numbers used during 6th as the minimum "mass" infantry was 16 and most elites used units of 10 or 12

also 10 to 15 models is not uncommon in other R&F games, specially for light infantry formations or more dynamic models
(there are some nice Napoleonic Battalions out there with 10-15 models in running/attack poses)

and no, no one will play and R&F game with 15 models total in an army

Yes, for some specific infantry formations like light infantry / skirmishers, it's fine. Not whole armies only made of them all the time, it then looks silly. You don't see historic games made only of blocks of 10-15, because that would be silly and not representative of the historic battles. That is the point.

At this level, you play a skirmish game. Better use skirmish rules than rank-and-file, then. Like AoS, it works great at that level.

But that's just my point of view, granted. I feel like moving from 6th edition MSU was a good thing for Battle at that time.


I mean, you can criticize 8th edition for a lot of things and the predominence of hordes, but at least that version was encouraging you to make big formations. Older rule versions had always the feeling that if you dared to make a big horde formation, you'll only get crushed by smaller numbers simply because you had too many disadvantages for benefits in the rules. That was something I like in 8th...and it was frankly visually more impressive than a game with only blocks of 10-15 infantry or 5 cavalry buzzing around on the table, like a sad representation of a small skirmish instead of an epic battle.

I do like seeing the big formations, so would love to see soft restricted on size rather than too hard.

I was thinking if you put a restriction on unit width, so adding to a unit always was ranks for the most part.
Then could use the front arc measuring from the back corner to front corner and out.
Big units lose there charge and shooting arc and options, small units on the flank have much bigger ones.
Ranged units can be wider to accommodate it as well.
I think also making sure hero hammer is much less, with heroes being much closer to the units they are in. So you see a lot less huge units that exist just to keep a hero alive though everything.
It’s fine if the centre units grind more and the main game plays out on the flanks I feel.

Sarouan wrote:
Yes, for some specific infantry formations like light infantry / skirmishers, it's fine. Not whole armies only made of them all the time, it then looks silly. You don't see historic games made only of blocks of 10-15, because that would be silly and not representative of the historic battles. That is the point.

this is the point I have too disagree as the small model formations are much more representative for historical battles, they just don't look as good

"historically", a company being 50 soldiers wide and 2 soldiers deep is not good represented by square bases

a napoleonic french battalion, with 6 bases 40x15mm and 12 models in total, is much more representative and realistic for the historical battle than anything else
given a 45x40mm base with 6 models per looks better, but it is way too deep to be representative

hence for those were representation of historical battles is more important than how good a unit by itself looks, single model lines for company bases is very common, and a napoleonic battalion of 4 bases with 4 models each a "standard" (usually with 1/72 models to get more units on the table)

masses of 28mm models in one unit is not very common, simple because units become too deep and you don't have enough space on the table
outside of small scaled games (like a single brigade on the table) or mass-skirmish games, this is not really a thing

the point is, it looks silly but it is representative, were those units that don't look silly are not (or use 6mm or smaller models)

 kodos wrote:
for grand strategic games it does not really matter if it is 28mm or 15/10mm

if there are 24 models in a unit that represents 500 soldiers, or 80 models does not make a big difference
neither looks like 500 soldiers, both take the same space on the table and painting is not easier (just different)

it is simply just why what you are used to or not
hence the 16 model minimum unit in Warhammer 6th was still good as a "regiment" and the armies looked impressive

going with larger units always made it look less impressive on the "army" scale for me (hence I neither liked the gameplay nor the look of 8th Edition)

It makes huge diffence. 6mm armies with same foot print looks more impressive, easier to painj and cheaper.

And abstracted model count makes no sense when rules aren't abstracted in same way

Did you just unironically type that 6mm minis are easier to paint?!?!?!?

 Just Tony wrote:
Did you just unironically type that 6mm minis are easier to paint?!?!?!?

You can get away with painting less detail and still look impressive next to a full force, especially in a age of Contrast paints.

 Just Tony wrote:
Did you just unironically type that 6mm minis are easier to paint?!?!?!?

Small scale minis are deceptively easy to paint:
1. Prime white
2. Apply contrast
3. 1 highlight per colour
4. Base
5. Bask in the spectacle of your massive, display-tier Chapter/Regiment/Legion etc.

In 4th, 5th and 6th, blocks of 10 to 12 archer/missile troops and blocks of 20 foot troops worked great. Heavy Cav in blocks of 5 to 10 were ideal as they could compete with the bigger blocks of foot soldiers. Light cav and skirmishers were disposable and did not matter how big of units they were in (although units of 10 skirmishers/scouts and 5 light cav seemed to be the ideal size). To be honest, only Skaven and Goblins worked better in the larger sizes at that time.

The reason this worked is that these units were small enough that the player could maneuver the units on the battle field, charge and counter charge and strategy played a major role. This goes away when you field lots of larger units. Do not get me wrong, i do have a 30man, and a 40 man units Pikes and a 35 man unit of Bodyguard, but i have those for much larger games since they do not work in the standard 2150 point Tournament army.

The focus of The Old World needs to be balance and not blindly selling models. Units of twenty plastics and 5 Cav fit very well on a store shelf lets focus the game around that.

 Just Tony wrote:
Did you just unironically type that 6mm minis are easier to paint?!?!?!?

6mm tends to be a lot easier to paint than WFB minis and a lot quicker. You can of course go to town with paint jobs, but you can get away with the most simplistic stuff at 6mm and it still looks amazing.

6mm doesn't photograph as nicely though which is why there are some really talented 6mm painters out there, but the stuff rarely shows up in the wider wargaming hobby.

It is certainly a different experience than painting 28mm though and its not for everyone.I've done some 6mm scale WFB and if I didn't enjoy building and painting 28mm stuff so much, I'd have sold all my 28mm years ago and stuck with 6mm fantasy.

 RexHavoc wrote:

6mm doesn't photograph as nicely though which is why there are some really talented 6mm painters out there, but the stuff rarely shows up in the wider wargaming hobby.

I've been watching this guy apply his tyranid colour scheme to Epic.

https://instagram.com/ryans_minis?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Mozzamanx wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Did you just unironically type that 6mm minis are easier to paint?!?!?!?

Small scale minis are deceptively easy to paint:
1. Prime white
2. Apply contrast
3. 1 highlight per colour
4. Base
5. Bask in the spectacle of your massive, display-tier Chapter/Regiment/Legion etc.

and how is this different from speed painting 28mm models?

except that 3 steps are enough in most cases (prime, apply wahs/ink/contrast, base)

 Vulcan wrote:
Yeah, there needs to be some sort of 'move into combat' to prevent such shenanigans, instead of the obsession with always charging forward

I always thought the easiest way would be to allow any unit to charge as it already could into contact, but also allow a "move into combat", using any movement allowed. this not counting as a charge for any charge bonuses, but the unit being contacted able to react as if they were being charged

point was two fold:

1. there is no no "safe area" next to an enemy unit but just out of its charge arc
2. a unit large enough to be an actual threat isn't something you willingly blunder into, but a small skirmish unit or lone character can be managed by the bulk of the unit contacting them

would also add some sort of "zone of control" mechanic that many historical games have


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:
Well, WFB ended for me with 7th. Random charges was the one single thing that made me drop the game.

I actually prefer random charges, however what we got was too random. something like "your normal movement plus 1d6" would have for me been better - consider it representing the guy ordering the charge not knowing the exact distance and it removes the "I am 0.1" outside your charge distance" stuff, while still reflecting the actual movement of the units (so faster units still charge further and can still use movement to good effect to maximise the chance of a charge while minimising the chance of being charged to the level the player is comfortable with).

the "everyone charges 2d6!" stuff was frankly just lazy and took away too much of the game into a pure dice roll. yes its a 2d6 roll so you can play the odds but at the end of the day its still a dice roll.

mind you I'd have also put in a minimum charge distance, can still charge below it but you don't get the charge bonuses as not enough space to build momentum up

I remember choosing 6th for my friend group because of the no random charges. I also heard it had decent balance.

Yea a less range dependan random charge would have been better, the fixed distance charge was as bad IMO if not worse than the random for all the reasons that Leopard said.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yea a less range dependan random charge would have been better, the fixed distance charge was as bad IMO if not worse than the random for all the reasons that Leopard said.

ANY game mechanics that allow the potential for Dwarfs to move faster than cavalry is a bad mechanic. Fixed charge moves still left plenty of room for players to drop the ball. It was never an issue in any of my games.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yea a less range dependan random charge would have been better, the fixed distance charge was as bad IMO if not worse than the random for all the reasons that Leopard said.

ANY game mechanics that allow the potential for Dwarfs to move faster than cavalry is a bad mechanic. Fixed charge moves still left plenty of room for players to drop the ball. It was never an issue in any of my games.

In reality, cavlary have stalled, failed charges.

We never had any major problems with random charges. It certianly got rid of the issues with people who could "guess" distance to the mm....some could, some cheated.

and this is another thing I absolutely hated:

the "safe area" next to an enemy unit but just out of its charge arc

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yea a less range dependan random charge would have been better, the fixed distance charge was as bad IMO if not worse than the random for all the reasons that Leopard said.

ANY game mechanics that allow the potential for Dwarfs to move faster than cavalry is a bad mechanic. Fixed charge moves still left plenty of room for players to drop the ball. It was never an issue in any of my games.

In reality, cavlary have stalled, failed charges.

We never had any major problems with random charges. It certianly got rid of the issues with people who could "guess" distance to the mm....some could, some cheated.

and this is another thing I absolutely hated:

the "safe area" next to an enemy unit but just out of its charge arc

Other players learned just how many inches a piece of terrain was, or could simply look at their 5 ranks of 25mm base chaos warriors (equals 5 inches) and use eyesight to check distances with those as a reference frame.

While I think there is room for wacky guess the range rules for catapults, stone throwers and charges in a sort of retro 5th edition warhammer goofy style type of game, I dont think it is the right system for The Old World. Movement + 1d6 would be better charge rules, than 2d6 at least.

Random vs fixed charge debate is WELL established to be a matter of personal taste, I don't think we need that well trod ground here in a news thread...

 RustyNumber wrote:
Random vs fixed charge debate is WELL established to be a matter of personal taste, I don't think we need that well trod ground here in a news thread...

agree, its just two different ways of doing the same thing, both have advantages and disadvantages, there are games that do both ways well and make both ways work

 Mr Morden wrote:

and this is another thing I absolutely hated:

the "safe area" next to an enemy unit but just out of its charge arc

I don't get this one personally . It's part of the tactics of a game with arcs and flanks - the possibility of being out manoeuvred. Other units set back to protect that area, skirmishers with 360 vision, or even just mobile shooting units could all deal with this and is all part of this type of game with restricted movement of units.

MaxT wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

and this is another thing I absolutely hated:

the "safe area" next to an enemy unit but just out of its charge arc

I don't get this one personally . It's part of the tactics of a game with arcs and flanks - the possibility of being out manoeuvred. Other units set back to protect that area, skirmishers with 360 vision, or even just mobile shooting units could all deal with this and is all part of this type of game with restricted movement of units.

I just think its stupid that say a few enemy can just hang out right next to a mob of Orcs with impunity but that IMO

Kindly take the rest of that discussion to the other topic, thanks!

EDIT: Deleted for being off-subject for this thread.

guess part of it comes down to this, are you, the player meant to be using the army general as an avatar, or are you meant to be every single unit leader at the same time

as noted, its just different ways of playing, keep in mind though GW are of the opinion that more random == more good

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/03/01/40-years-of-warhammer-gotrek-and-felix-make-a-scene/

Warhammer community has another Fantasy post about their 40 year anniversary. This time about Felix and Gortrek. I heard a rumor theirs were the only novels selling at profit for whfb in the 2000s


"This dynamic duo debuted in the story Geheimnisnacht by William King – featured in the 1989 anthology Ignorant Armies – and went on to inspire and star in a long-running novel series that has pitted them against unimaginable horrors, terrifying tyrants, and lots and lots and LOTS of goblins"

With ToW we'll have a bad ruleset, terribly expensive miniatures and, worse, lot of minor (but better) games will probably disappear. This is what Tow will bring.

Johanxp wrote:
With ToW we'll have a bad ruleset, terribly expensive miniatures and, worse, lot of minor (but better) games will probably disappear. This is what Tow will bring.

You must be fun at parties

Maybe we'll better wait until we know what TOW is actually going to be before we proclaim the sky is falling again.

The G&F novels are real fun. Definitely the only Fantasy Novels from GW I bothered with.

Johanxp wrote:
With ToW we'll have a bad ruleset, terribly expensive miniatures and, worse, lot of minor (but better) games will probably disappear. This is what Tow will bring.

Not really interested in the game tbh - looking forward to more artwork and maybe some passable lore for the era - maybe some minis but maybe not

ToW will hopefully open a window to a new edition of Mordheim. At minimum it will provide fodder for it.

Dread Master wrote:
ToW will hopefully open a window to a new edition of Mordheim. At minimum it will provide fodder for it.

Please no I don't want a monopose Warcry version of Mordheim with a bunch of disney cartoon characters and 20 DLC books. The rules are free and you can change the rules you don't like.

Like how we got monopose Necromunda kits with that update? Come on.

Dread Master wrote:
Like how we got monopose Necromunda kits with that update? Come on.

Yeah? The Necromunda kits are horribly limited, and they got worse as they went along.

Goose LeChance wrote:

Dread Master wrote:
ToW will hopefully open a window to a new edition of Mordheim. At minimum it will provide fodder for it.

Please no I don't want a monopose Warcry version of Mordheim with a bunch of disney cartoon characters and 20 DLC books. The rules are free and you can change the rules you don't like.

If you play an older version of a game that is no longer supported, then a new version is only a good thing. If you like the rules great. If you dont, its not stopping you from continuing to play that old version you love. If new models come with the new edition and you like them, you can possibly use them in that old version you are playing. If you dont like them, you still have your old models. And you have the satisfaction of knowing that people are wasting their money while you play a superior game with superior models.

I will likely buy some new models... but its been a while since I have played anything except RPGs and board games so the game itself is doubtful... but maybe.

Goose LeChance wrote:

Dread Master wrote:
Like how we got monopose Necromunda kits with that update? Come on.

Yeah? The Necromunda kits are horribly limited, and they got worse as they went along.

As opposed to what? Mordheim's vast range of hugely modular, customizable...metal miniatures? The plastics from the starter box were exceptional for the time in that regard but they were pretty much outliers in that range. I don't know where the idea that Necromunda's kits are limited comes from.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have plenty of reservations about what GW would do to the Mordheim setting/ruleset but having new kits is not one of them.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:

Dread Master wrote:
Like how we got monopose Necromunda kits with that update? Come on.

Yeah? The Necromunda kits are horribly limited, and they got worse as they went along.

As opposed to what? Mordheim's vast range of hugely modular, customizable...metal miniatures? The plastics from the starter box were exceptional for the time in that regard but they were pretty much outliers in that range. I don't know where the idea that Necromunda's kits are limited comes from.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have plenty of reservations about what GW would do to the Mordheim setting/ruleset but having new kits is not one of them.

Mordheim had a lot of 'borrowed' customization from people using the old-style regiment boxes, especially the Imperial Militia box, which were some of the greatest boxes of all time for parts and bits, but yeah, the actual made-for-mordheim minis were about average.

Tsagualsa wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:

Dread Master wrote:
Like how we got monopose Necromunda kits with that update? Come on.

Yeah? The Necromunda kits are horribly limited, and they got worse as they went along.

As opposed to what? Mordheim's vast range of hugely modular, customizable...metal miniatures? The plastics from the starter box were exceptional for the time in that regard but they were pretty much outliers in that range. I don't know where the idea that Necromunda's kits are limited comes from.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have plenty of reservations about what GW would do to the Mordheim setting/ruleset but having new kits is not one of them.

Mordheim had a lot of 'borrowed' customization from people using the old-style regiment boxes, especially the Imperial Militia box, which were some of the greatest boxes of all time for parts and bits, but yeah, the actual made-for-mordheim minis were about average.

Necromunda: because they are, after Escher and Goliath (which still had limitations) they kept getting worse.

The Empire Militia were made for Mordheim then repurposed for Warhammer. But yeah most others were using modular fantasy kits since GW put little investment into Specialist games.

Goose LeChance wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:

Dread Master wrote:
Like how we got monopose Necromunda kits with that update? Come on.

Yeah? The Necromunda kits are horribly limited, and they got worse as they went along.

As opposed to what? Mordheim's vast range of hugely modular, customizable...metal miniatures? The plastics from the starter box were exceptional for the time in that regard but they were pretty much outliers in that range. I don't know where the idea that Necromunda's kits are limited comes from.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have plenty of reservations about what GW would do to the Mordheim setting/ruleset but having new kits is not one of them.

Mordheim had a lot of 'borrowed' customization from people using the old-style regiment boxes, especially the Imperial Militia box, which were some of the greatest boxes of all time for parts and bits, but yeah, the actual made-for-mordheim minis were about average.

Necromunda: because they are, after Escher and Goliath (which still had limitations) they kept getting worse.

The Empire Militia were made for Mordheim then repurposed for Warhammer. But yeah most others were using modular fantasy kits since GW put little investment into Specialist games.

Re. the use of WH Fantasy kits, sure but that only really works for the Mercenaries and Skaven (and to an extent Undead given they also utilised some of the WHFB plastics). I certainly wouldn't say the use of re-purposed Fantasy kits was stretched to 'most others' whilst the actual Mordhiem range was still in production without it becoming a conversion. After the support went then naturally any amount of kitbashing did (and does) permeate people's collections. Everything else was fairly bespoke in terms of having a unique aesthetic.

I think I just fundamentally disagree that the Necromunda kits are limited.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Re. the use of WH Fantasy kits, sure but that only really works for the Mercenaries and Skaven (and to an extent Undead given they also utilised some of the WHFB plastics). I certainly wouldn't say the use of re-purposed Fantasy kits was stretched to 'most others' whilst the actual Mordhiem range was still in production without it becoming a conversion. After the support went then naturally any amount of kitbashing did (and does) permeate people's collections. Everything else was fairly bespoke in terms of having a unique aesthetic.

I think I just fundamentally disagree that the Necromunda kits are limited.

Certainly the new Necromunda kits are no more limited than the old ones - i think people have a serious case of rose-tinted glasses going on about how posable and flexible these were, it was mostly monopose, often metal bodies with a choice ranging from two to a handful of weapons. To go beyond that, you had to get out your metal saws and e.g. Space Marine / Guard weapon sprues, do headswaps and so on.

Seriously, take a look through the old catalogs, it's mostly no options or weapon swaps:

http://solegends.com/citcat1995-6/cat19956p107-02.htm

Compared to that, the new models are much more customizable, if only because there are dedicated upgrade and weapon packs for each gang.

The Specialist Games era stuff was not much better, they had a couple more metal weapon options and a handful of heads:

http://solegends.com/citcat2005spc/c2005spcp0019-02.htm

Does it...

Does it really matter...?

Does Goose saying 'necromunda kits are limited' really bring down the red mist for so many people...?

I don't think its a red mist so much as he's making a claim many don't find accurate both opinion and factually based. So they are correcting/providing their own angle.

Honestly if the team behind current Necromunda did a new Mordhiem or AoS equivalent I'd be REALLY happy.

Warcry has done great and is a lot of fun visually, but the kits are very single-option (with a leader model having one or two alternate parts). Having some customisable and upgrade compatible models in the fantasy line would be a lot of fun!

I never claimed old Necromunda models were modular.

The Necromunda plastics started to follow the same pattern as most new kits, where a static pose has at best 1 alternate build. One pose, two loadouts. It's not universal because the design was changing as they were released.

I own modular kits like Frostgrave, Bolt Action, and the Mercenaries. I know the differences between monopose, modular and all things in between. I understand the direction GW has gone so I personally have zero faith in a Mordheim reboot.

If those responses are interpreted as a 'Red Mist' of any variety then I don't know what to tell you.

The point I was more trying to make with regards to how posable modern Necromunda models are is that they're by and large (Delaque...less so....) far more modular than the majority of kits actually made specifically for Mordheim (with the noted exceptions of the Mercenaries and Skaven); not surprising given the bulk of those sets were metal.

What I would say is that we can't really hold them to the same standards when there's the change in material and just general advances in the technical element of kit manufacture factored in so yes; personally I'd be more than happy, in theory, with modern Mordheim sets with the same degree of customization as the rebooted Necromunda kits. Whether they'd be any good or not in terms of aesthetic or tone or ability to capture the feel of the originals is a different matter.

Knock it off, that has nothing to do with ToW N&R.

So Empire dev diary released on the 11th of January
Tomb Kings dev diary released on the 6th of February
,what do you think when is the March dev diary is going to drop and which faction will it be?

My bets that they are going to either this week or on the start of the next. Faction bet is either Bretonnia or High Elves.

Just for gigles lets see that possible factions for the game:

Empire
Tomb Kings
Bretonnia
Dwarfs
High Elves
Wood Elves
Orcs and Goblins
Vampire Counts
Warriors of Chaos
Beastmen
Kislev
Border Princes
Cathay?

Which means, if they do 1 faction a month then it will take a more then a full year for them preview all of them.

Dogs of War/Tilea are also an option

 herjan1987 wrote:
So Empire dev diary released on the 11th of January
Tomb Kings dev diary released on the 6th of February
,what do you think when is the March dev diary is going to drop and which faction will it be?

My bets that they are going to either this week or on the start of the next. Faction bet is either Bretonnia or High Elves.

Just for gigles lets see that possible factions for the game:

Empire
Tomb Kings
Bretonnia
Dwarfs
High Elves
Wood Elves
Orcs and Goblins
Vampire Counts
Warriors of Chaos
Beastmen
Kislev
Border Princes
Cathay?

Which means, if they do 1 faction a month then it will take a more then a full year for them preview all of them.

Didn't they already show Orcs and Goblins stuff along with Bretonnian stuff?

When the first map and snippets of info on TOW dropped, I was cautiously excited about a possible return of the old Warhammer Fantasy setting.

Using an era of internal strife in the Empire as timeframe would technically allow for an Empire - Empire starter à la Horus Heresy (YMMV).

They could then gradually introduce new factions, leapfrogging between good and evil :

Starter (Empire - Empire)

Chaos

Bretonnia

Orcs & Goblins

Dwarves

Skaven

...


With the current information and maps mentioning Cathay, Kislev, The Border Princes and other remote regions in more and more detail,
I think that the scope of the project is getting too big/ambitious and wonder what new miniatures we're effectively going to see..

Do we actually know if a monthly dev diary is even a thing?

 Just Tony wrote:

 herjan1987 wrote:
So Empire dev diary released on the 11th of January
Tomb Kings dev diary released on the 6th of February
,what do you think when is the March dev diary is going to drop and which faction will it be?

My bets that they are going to either this week or on the start of the next. Faction bet is either Bretonnia or High Elves.

Just for gigles lets see that possible factions for the game:

Empire
Tomb Kings
Bretonnia
Dwarfs
High Elves
Wood Elves
Orcs and Goblins
Vampire Counts
Warriors of Chaos
Beastmen
Kislev
Border Princes
Cathay?

Which means, if they do 1 faction a month then it will take a more then a full year for them preview all of them.

Didn't they already show Orcs and Goblins stuff along with Bretonnian stuff?

They showed Artwork, yes, but I think op is talking specifically about a "what are they up to currently" post about each faction, which the dev diaries have done about the Empire and the Tomb Kings. You're still kind of right, because the first post about Bretonnia did show us their rivalry with the Greenskins.

Without knowing the full scope/timespan of the setting I don't think we can do more than speculate on the potential names floating about at the time. Like, if we're getting a snapshot about 50 years prior to the Great War (as seems to be the case) then that's a lot more limiting than covering a couple of centuries or so of the build up. The Von Carstein Vampire Counts are all dusted at this point (or floating in a swamp) so will be interesting to see how they're handled (quite like the idea of their petty offspring involved in a Civil War of their own in Sylvania to try and claim the mantle).

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Do we actually know if a monthly dev diary is even a thing?

We don't know. There isn't even much of a pattern other than one per month. January 11 was in the third week of the month , February 6 in the second week of the month. The posts were made on a Wednesday and Monday respectively. The posts were four weeks apart, which if you were inclined to see that as the beginnings of a pattern, would put the next post in this week. Although at best that means going back to posting on Wednesday again since we've missed the Monday slot.

This is far from New Model Monday and Horus Heresy Thursday. We can't rule out that a new article drops any minute now, but considering how drawn out the Old World marketing has been so far, I don't think we should feel confident in GW's commitment to regular updates just yet.

I was thinking about this the other day. I think that some of the armies may look a bit different then they did in 6th and for sure 8th. While we will likely see the return of the War Wagon for the empire. Their are a real change we could see the return of older (discontinued) units return to the armies. My thought is that in different armies certain units have fallen out of fashion by the time the modern era came around. So the elves may see the return of Animal trainers (Beastmasters for the Dark Elves), Wood Elves may see Shapeshifters, Falconers and Zoats, or Dark Elves may see the return of Doom Riders (Knights on Elf Steeds) because the Dark Elves have not yet mastered the use of Cold Ones.

Since the return of the Regiments of Renown to AoS, it is possible that may also see old RoR return to the game as well, like the Red Redemption, Skarloc's Archers, and/or Mad Mula Akland's Death Commandos.

I'd love all those things to happen, Paymaster, but I'm not nearly as optimistic.

GW just haven't given us enough to go on.

 Paymaster Games wrote:
I was thinking about this the other day. I think that some of the armies may look a bit different then they did in 6th and for sure 8th. While we will likely see the return of the War Wagon for the empire. Their are a real change we could see the return of older (discontinued) units return to the armies. My thought is that in different armies certain units have fallen out of fashion by the time the modern era came around. So the elves may see the return of Animal trainers (Beastmasters for the Dark Elves), Wood Elves may see Shapeshifters, Falconers and Zoats, or Dark Elves may see the return of Doom Riders (Knights on Elf Steeds) because the Dark Elves have not yet mastered the use of Cold Ones.

Since the return of the Regiments of Renown to AoS, it is possible that may also see old RoR return to the game as well, like the Red Redemption, Skarloc's Archers, and/or Mad Mula Akland's Death Commandos.

Sounds like a great plan to me - also may have more appeal to GW as they are more "unique"

Hoping for just after the Great war as well as Kislev gets a vampire Tzarina

I really think that the time of three emperors, will likely cover the major conflicts that happened during that period and not just the Great War against Chaos ending in the Siege of Praag. The romance of the three kingdoms was book ended with the Yellow Turban Rebelion (a strong start) and Ended when Wu surrendered to Jin ( very weak ending). In between the bookends is the real and exciting campaigns and battles take place. The Battle of the Red Cliffs, the rise and fall of Lu Bu, the Battle of the Wu Shan Plains are where the real story of the Three Kingdoms is told. I see the Time of three Emperors as some thing very similar. The Vampire Wars, the Affair of the False Grail, The Fall of Mordhiem, the War of Sand and Snow are all stories are a very real part of the story of the Three Emperors and should be part of story before the climax at the Siege of Praag and Magus the Pious's ascension to the throne of the Empire.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Without knowing the full scope/timespan of the setting I don't think we can do more than speculate on the potential names floating about at the time. Like, if we're getting a snapshot about 50 years prior to the Great War (as seems to be the case) then that's a lot more limiting than covering a couple of centuries or so of the build up. The Von Carstein Vampire Counts are all dusted at this point (or floating in a swamp) so will be interesting to see how they're handled (quite like the idea of their petty offspring involved in a Civil War of their own in Sylvania to try and claim the mantle).

I truly believe that the Time of Three Emperors and subsequent Great War against Chaos is just one point in history they will have us visit with the Old World. I think that if the game is succesful, they might jump around to different events, like the vampire wars, or the war against Morghur or Waaagh! Gorbad. The Great War Against chaos is just an event in which so many different factions have a stake in;

- The Dark Elves invade Ulthuan during this period

- The Skaven Civil War is about to end

- Kraka Drak is going to become besieged

- the Red Pox will spread in Bretonnia

And many more things happen coinciding with the Great War.

 Segersgia wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Without knowing the full scope/timespan of the setting I don't think we can do more than speculate on the potential names floating about at the time. Like, if we're getting a snapshot about 50 years prior to the Great War (as seems to be the case) then that's a lot more limiting than covering a couple of centuries or so of the build up. The Von Carstein Vampire Counts are all dusted at this point (or floating in a swamp) so will be interesting to see how they're handled (quite like the idea of their petty offspring involved in a Civil War of their own in Sylvania to try and claim the mantle).

I truly believe that the Time of Three Emperors and subsequent Great War against Chaos is just one point in history they will have us visit with the Old World. I think that if the game is succesful, they might jump around to different events, like the vampire wars, or the war against Morghur or Waaagh! Gorbad. The Great War Against chaos is just an event in which so many different factions have a stake in;

- The Dark Elves invade Ulthuan during this period

- The Skaven Civil War is about to end

- Kraka Drak is going to become besieged

- the Red Pox will spread in Bretonnia

And many more things happen coinciding with the Great War.

Some of those events sound like good opportunities to focus box sets/ releases on to expand past the Empire.

Kraka Dark would be a good opportunity to bring out norse dwarfs, even just as a warrior kit with characters. Brand new but always been in the setting. I'd love to see them in a modern plastic kit -always very fond of them in 1st and 2nd ed.Plus proper slayers/norse dwarf berserkers.

 KidCthulhu wrote:
I'd love all those things to happen, Paymaster, but I'm not nearly as optimistic.

GW just haven't given us enough to go on.

Yeah, I feel like they're going to stretch this out and keep giving original fans hope, but not sure they can really make what we'd all want. Despite the success of AoS, blowing up the Old World is still one of GW's biggest mistakes to me.

They learned from it, but it hasn't brought the setting we all knew and loved back...

 RiTides wrote:

 KidCthulhu wrote:
I'd love all those things to happen, Paymaster, but I'm not nearly as optimistic.

GW just haven't given us enough to go on.

Yeah, I feel like they're going to stretch this out and keep giving original fans hope, but not sure they can really make what we'd all want. Despite the success of AoS, blowing up the Old World is still one of GW's biggest mistakes to me.

They learned from it, but it hasn't brought the setting we all knew and loved back...

On the other hand, they have brought back several other things that people had been asking for, some of which were closer to memes than actual possible releases: Necromunda, Sororitas, Kroot, Arbites, GSC, Squats etc.

That at least does give me some hope that they are aware of the demand for WHF coming back and are taking it seriously. What remains to be seen is how strongly they are going to commit.

 BertBert wrote:


On the other hand, they have brought back several other things that people had been asking for, some of which were closer to memes than actual possible releases: Necromunda, Sororitas, Kroot, Arbites, GSC, Squats etc.

That at least does give me some hope that they are aware of the demand for WHF coming back and are taking it seriously. What remains to be seen is how strongly they are going to commit.

Frankly all that interested me in a return to the Old World is Chaos Dwarves, Cathay and Kislev. So really I think it completely depends on their release schedule on if it will be a strongly supported success. I expect that when it launches it will be heavy with Empire, Chaos and High Elves, but I really hope I am proven wrong.

A "Get Started" box with Kislev versus Chaos Dwarves would be amazing...

 RiTides wrote:

 KidCthulhu wrote:
I'd love all those things to happen, Paymaster, but I'm not nearly as optimistic.

GW just haven't given us enough to go on.

Yeah, I feel like they're going to stretch this out and keep giving original fans hope, but not sure they can really make what we'd all want.

I certainly think people should keep their expectations restrained for the initial release, though I'd hope for a fairly comprehensive Black Book set of army lists to cover factions they don't release at launch.

TOW even has me looking at that Dwarf Regiment of Reknown box, as I don't think I had any of those old models in my old Throng. Would need to eBay some square bases, though.

 RiTides wrote:
Despite the success of AoS, blowing up the Old World is still one of GW's biggest mistakes to me.

It's certainly a mistake you'd be intimately familiar with, that's for sure.

If Chaos Dwarfs aren't in then the Old Worlde can stay dead!!!

I'm more optimistic. I think it is taking a while because they are using the time to make sure it is done right.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm more optimistic. I think it is taking a while because they are using the time to make sure it is done right.

While hoping the best, but in the meantime I am keeping my Book of Grudges close.

I also hopping for some cool army boxes like Vanguard and Combat Patrol stuff.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm more optimistic. I think it is taking a while because they are using the time to make sure it is done right.

I'm gonna throw in a wild guess and say, assuming TOW is actually a thing, it's unlikely to happen while they're churning out monthly Heresy kits. TOW feels like exactly what slides into Heresy production slots once Heresy is done, not run concurrently with it.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm more optimistic. I think it is taking a while because they are using the time to make sure it is done right.

I'm gonna throw in a wild guess and say, assuming TOW is actually a thing, it's unlikely to happen while they're churning out monthly Heresy kits. TOW feels like exactly what slides into Heresy production slots once Heresy is done, not run concurrently with it.

Indeed - they seem to be in a right hurry to shift as many big forgeworld kits towards plastic as they can, to open up capacity for something, and at this point the only thing we can reasonably assume that to be is TOW.

Prepare yourselves (jokingly) :

FW Empire Reikland heads & shields

FW Empire Averland heads & shields

FW Empire Talabecland heads & shields

..

Old-Four-Arms wrote:
Prepare yourselves (jokingly) :

FW Empire Reikland heads & shields

FW Empire Averland heads & shields

FW Empire Talabecland heads & shields

..

Luckily we'll get:
Plastic Riekland Steamtank

Plastic Averland Steamtank (same basic model, but with a different cannon)

Plastic Nordland Steamtank (same as the the other two, but with a different upgrade sprue)

What you'll actually get is this thread locked once again, for none of this is news & rumours

The Steamtank during the period should be a Special Character. Their were so few of them at this time their should be a limit on using them.

The War Wagon is a suitable replacement for the tank for this time period.

Can I hope they drop the save roll entirely and do as LotR (and many other games) by combining toughness and save into a single defence characteristic? That would then make ward saves extra special and very obviously something completely different, hopefully stemming the tide of “does +1 to saves help my parry roll” and similar.

 Paymaster Games wrote:
The Steamtank during the period should be a Special Character. Their were so few of them at this time their should be a limit on using them.

The War Wagon is a suitable replacement for the tank for this time period.

In 5th edition there WAS a limit - the Steam Tank was a 0-8 option, because the whole of the Empire only had 8. There used to be 12.

Personally, I'd like to be able to put the War Wagon crew on top of the Tank again.

 Paymaster Games wrote:
The Steamtank during the period should be a Special Character. Their were so few of them at this time their should be a limit on using them.

The War Wagon is a suitable replacement for the tank for this time period.

Surely there should be more of them, if anything? Only 12 were ever made and that number is only going down over time, the Empire doesn't have the means to reproduce them since the inventor died.

On the Eigth Edition for Life forum (https://eefl.freeforums.net ) there are some roumors from the user called Discoqing:

Mainly 7th ed rules, with some changes.
Subdued magic
360 arc of sight for some units
Random charging is gone. Back to double movement
Premeasuring is still a thing

Also the rulebook is already printed and they are going to release it by the end of this year.

That's a wish list.

 herjan1987 wrote:
On the Eigth Edition for Life forum (https://eefl.freeforums.net ) there are some roumors from the user called Discoqing:

Mainly 7th ed rules, with some changes.
Subdued magic
360 arc of sight for some units
Random charging is gone. Back to double movement
Premeasuring is still a thing

Also the rulebook is already printed and they are going to release it by the end of this year.

"Mainly" 7th Edt. rules... then list major reasons why it isnt 7th Edt.

Preameasuring and non random charges combined would make the game quite dull no? Add in 360 arcs and the game plays itself.

frogert_poj wrote:


"Mainly" 7th Edt. rules... then list major reasons why it isnt 7th Edt.

Preameasuring and non random charges combined would make the game quite dull no? Add in 360 arcs and the game plays itself.

Not that know anything more than he posted, but 360 arcs for mounted archers like Glade riders would be interesting.

To elabarate on preameasuring and non random charges, he keeps bringing up Kings of War, where as he says both mechanics work.

Here is link were he spreads, the info:

https://eefl.freeforums.net/thread/3235/?page=2

Its from the middle of the page and goes on till the last.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Paymaster Games wrote:
The Steamtank during the period should be a Special Character. Their were so few of them at this time their should be a limit on using them.

The War Wagon is a suitable replacement for the tank for this time period.

In 5th edition there WAS a limit - the Steam Tank was a 0-8 option, because the whole of the Empire only had 8. There used to be 12.

Personally, I'd like to be able to put the War Wagon crew on top of the Tank again.

You can run that Tank variant in 6th Edition. Just saying...




And I question the logic of 7th being the basis. It broke far more about 6th than it supposedly fixed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dysartes wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Despite the success of AoS, blowing up the Old World is still one of GW's biggest mistakes to me.

It's certainly a mistake you'd be intimately familiar with, that's for sure.

This isn't your political circle-jerk board. Leave your political circle-jerk forum drama at the door, please.

Tsagualsa wrote:What you'll actually get is this thread locked once again, for none of this is news & rumours

Some people simply cannot help themselves...

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Can I hope they drop the save roll entirely and do as LotR (and many other games) by combining toughness and save into a single defence characteristic? That would then make ward saves extra special and very obviously something completely different, hopefully stemming the tide of “does +1 to saves help my parry roll” and similar.

Hard to say just how far they're willing to deviate from established design. So far we have this early statement from GW:

GW wrote:Warhammer: The Old World will gather up all our favourite mechanics from the 3rd edition to the 8th edition** and add new elements where needed to create something deeply familiar yet fresh and new.

It depends on how much you want to read into the new elements bit. At its least impactful, The Old World will be a "best of" ruleset and anything new is only introduced to mesh things together that weren't originally meant to go together. If you're a bit more hopeful, they'll reevaluate every old rule they plan to use to get a cohesive ruleset that has the advertised familiarity and don't shy away from bigger structural changes to the core rules to make things work better.

Armor saves are actually a good example of something that they should rethink. What you're asking for was mostly the case anyway in late Fantasy. Everyone and their dog was packing S5 and S6 weapons that negated most saves in the game, and no one bothered to spend points on optional light or heavy armor upgrades because you didn't get to use them anyway. This should be addressed, and rolling saves into toughness wouldn't be a half bad way of doing it I reckon. It would remove the double advantage of high strength attacks both getting to wound better and negating saves better at the same time. Might be warranted, considering high lethality is one of the bigger problems in modern GW games.

The question is if that goes well with the goal of providing a ruleset that's deeply familiar. Have a larger number of such rule changes and GW may lose the nostalgia bait effect they're going for.

I feel the eternal clash is whether you want a ruleset which works as an engine for players making decisions (both in list building and in game) - or whether you are just trying to model in rules what's down in game as if it existed in real life (i.e. verisimilitude).

So from a verisimilitude perspective, it probably makes sense that guys with two-handed weapons (to get S5/S6) are "good" into armoured infantry, cavalry, monsters etc. But since this arguably makes them "good into everything" you might want more gameplay dimensions than this (and it may prompt lots of arguments on melee weapon real life effectiveness vs each other). I agree, there's little point having armour upgrades that do nothing because everyone you want fighting is ignoring their benefit.

We had this in the Tomb Kings article:

Dan: We’ve taken a great deal of care to make the Undead work. It was vital that the rules presented balanced game mechanics while evoking the frightening image of rank upon rank of skeleton warriors marching in unison, as chariots speed towards the enemy flanked by monstrous constructs animated by the ancient magic of the Mortuary Cults. You will be able to wield the powers of a Liche Priest once more, commanding skeletal hordes to Arise! from their tombs and march upon the lands of the living.

Unfortunately it doesn't really tell us anything beyond "we want balanced game mechanics" but also "we want the rules to capture the feel of having skeletons walking forward together, chariots riding around etc" - i.e. verisimilitude.

 Just Tony wrote:
You can run that Tank variant in 6th Edition. Just saying...

And I question the logic of 7th being the basis. It broke far more about 6th than it supposedly fixed.

I agree... while I primarily played Fantasy during 7th and 8th, the former was broken as heck by the end.

I know a lot of that is the final army books being just off the chain, but it was nuts. I had a very fluffy forest spirit themed wood elf army, and I remember once getting tabled by a Daemon army and only killing 3 models!

Obviously, a bad matchup and not realizing my opponent was going to run his best tournament list played a part, but holy cow that edition was broken.

And then 8th incentivized huge blocks of infantry which were basically just filler... but wouldn't just removing that almost fix 8th? I had very little exposure to earlier editions so no idea on 6th / etc! But it seems likely that GW, like with 30k / Horus Heresy, would choose to build off the last version of the ruleset.

 herjan1987 wrote:
On the Eigth Edition for Life forum (https://eefl.freeforums.net ) there are some roumors from the user called Discoqing:

Mainly 7th ed rules, with some changes.
Subdued magic
360 arc of sight for some units
Random charging is gone. Back to double movement
Premeasuring is still a thing

Also the rulebook is already printed and they are going to release it by the end of this year.

Well better magic would be even more soul destroying and broken than it was already.
Premasuring = great
Non random charges -- rubbish choice
360 arc for some units - makes sense

from a verisimilitude perspective, it probably makes sense that guys with two-handed weapons (to get S5/S6) are "good" into armoured infantry, cavalry, monsters etc. But since this arguably makes them "good into everything" you might want more gameplay dimensions than this (and it may prompt lots of arguments on melee weapon real life effectiveness vs each other). I agree, there's little point having armour upgrades that do nothing because everyone you want fighting is ignoring their benefit.

Surely thats what points values are for? So if the Great Weapons are the best they cost more than other weapons. Throw in situational elements - like spears/pikes being good against cav etc....

Which R&F games out there, except those based on 8th Edition Warhammer, have random charges combined with pre-measuring?

 kodos wrote:
Which R&F games out there, except those based on 8th Edition Warhammer, have random charges combined with pre-measuring?

Conquest: Last Argument of Kings is move value + 1d6. A Song of Ice and Fire is the same. I'm sure I've picked up a few more random R&F rulebooks with it but those are the main two.

I like pre-measuring + non-random charges, with the caveat that scenario encourages that *somebody* has to take the first risk to get into charge range.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
That's a wish list.

A gentleman on EEFL says his friends are... not playtesting, but getting sneak previews, I guess? This is what he's reporting of their experience.

Know a guy who knows a guy who shot a guy and all that; take with the appropriate amount of salt. We'll all see if this is true or not by the end of the year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:
with the caveat that scenario encourages that *somebody* has to take the first risk to get into charge range.

There are two ways to do that.

1) Make getting the charge completely irrelevant to who wins the subsequent combat. NO bonus to getting a charge in. No +1 combat res, no striking first, not even bonus S for lances and spears.

2) Random charge ranges.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
That's a wish list.

A gentleman on EEFL says his friends are... not playtesting, but getting sneak previews, I guess? This is what he's reporting of their experience.

Know a guy who knows a guy who shot a guy and all that; take with the appropriate amount of salt. We'll all see if this is true or not by the end of the year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:
with the caveat that scenario encourages that *somebody* has to take the first risk to get into charge range.

There are two ways to do that.

1) Make getting the charge completely irrelevant to who wins the subsequent combat. NO bonus to getting a charge in. No +1 combat res, no striking first, not even bonus S for lances and spears.

2) Random charge ranges.

Or 3) Have scenarios that encourage that *somebody* has to take the first risk to get into charge range. Ie, an objective marker to claim/destroy.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Paymaster Games wrote:
The Steamtank during the period should be a Special Character. Their were so few of them at this time their should be a limit on using them.

The War Wagon is a suitable replacement for the tank for this time period.

In 5th edition there WAS a limit - the Steam Tank was a 0-8 option, because the whole of the Empire only had 8. There used to be 12.

Personally, I'd like to be able to put the War Wagon crew on top of the Tank again.

You can run that Tank variant in 6th Edition. Just saying...

I know, and I did. It was my favorite build. I was sad when they removed the option.

 Rihgu wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Which R&F games out there, except those based on 8th Edition Warhammer, have random charges combined with pre-measuring?

Conquest: Last Argument of Kings is move value + 1d6. A Song of Ice and Fire is the same. I'm sure I've picked up a few more random R&F rulebooks with it but those are the main two.
I like pre-measuring + non-random charges, with the caveat that scenario encourages that *somebody* has to take the first risk to get into charge range.

this is somehow half way thru as you still have the fixed charge range (movement +1) but an extended threat range (even KoW has a trait to add random charge range in addition to the movement)
from the historical games I play, all have a fixed ranges, even the skirmish games, so the only good reason for random ranges I can see is that no one else is doing it and they want the game to be unique

 Vulcan wrote:

1) Make getting the charge completely irrelevant to who wins the subsequent combat. NO bonus to getting a charge in. No +1 combat res, no striking first, not even bonus S for lances and spears.
2) Random charge ranges.

and non of the games without random charge ranges is doing it and it still works
the difference for most games is simple that killing alone does not win the game, so standing in the back and never go into charge range will guarantee a los, no matter how many models you kill with shooting

I think half-random charges split the best of both worlds. D6+X, where X is/is based on movement.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think half-random charges split the best of both worlds. D6+X, where X is/is based on movement.

Ugh >.< The worst!!

I can't imagine they'd go this route (or hopefully, any randomness in charge distances) again.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think half-random charges split the best of both worlds. D6+X, where X is/is based on movement.

Just ads time and dice rolling that can be better used in other places of the game, better to just add something and save it for other places I think.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think half-random charges split the best of both worlds. D6+X, where X is/is based on movement.

Agreed - best of both worlds

 RiTides wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think half-random charges split the best of both worlds. D6+X, where X is/is based on movement.

Ugh >.< The worst!!

I can't imagine they'd go this route (or hopefully, any randomness in charge distances) again.

Keep on hoping baby. Both the Necromunda reboot and the Horus Heresy reboot have random charges.

 kodos wrote:
(even KoW has a trait to add random charge range in addition to the movement)

Normally a fixed number for the trait (+1 or +2), only a small subset uses a D3 (which is gak and doesn't gel with the way the system works).

 Rihgu wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
That's a wish list.

A gentleman on EEFL says his friends are... not playtesting, but getting sneak previews, I guess? This is what he's reporting of their experience.

Know a guy who knows a guy who shot a guy and all that; take with the appropriate amount of salt. We'll all see if this is true or not by the end of the year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:
with the caveat that scenario encourages that *somebody* has to take the first risk to get into charge range.

There are two ways to do that.

1) Make getting the charge completely irrelevant to who wins the subsequent combat. NO bonus to getting a charge in. No +1 combat res, no striking first, not even bonus S for lances and spears.

2) Random charge ranges.

Or 3) Have scenarios that encourage that *somebody* has to take the first risk to get into charge range. Ie, an objective marker to claim/destroy.

If it's placed in the middle there's still no motive to go first and get charged into oblivion. If going first and getting charged means you lose, there's still zero incentive to go first as the person who goes second will be the one both claiming the objective and benefiting from destroying an enemy unit.

If it's on one side or the other it gives that side a big advantage. If there are objectives on both sides we're right back where we started.

And again, cavalry becomes king as they charge farther than infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think half-random charges split the best of both worlds. D6+X, where X is/is based on movement.

Just ads time and dice rolling that can be better used in other places of the game, better to just add something and save it for other places I think.

My general experience is the quarter-inch shuffle trying to bait the other guy into a failed charge takes WAY longer than rolling dice, sometimes taking up between three and five whole turns.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
That's a wish list.

A gentleman on EEFL says his friends are... not playtesting, but getting sneak previews, I guess? This is what he's reporting of their experience.

Know a guy who knows a guy who shot a guy and all that; take with the appropriate amount of salt. We'll all see if this is true or not by the end of the year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:
with the caveat that scenario encourages that *somebody* has to take the first risk to get into charge range.

There are two ways to do that.

1) Make getting the charge completely irrelevant to who wins the subsequent combat. NO bonus to getting a charge in. No +1 combat res, no striking first, not even bonus S for lances and spears.

2) Random charge ranges.

Or 3) Have scenarios that encourage that *somebody* has to take the first risk to get into charge range. Ie, an objective marker to claim/destroy.

If it's placed in the middle there's still no motive to go first and get charged into oblivion. If going first and getting charged means you lose, there's still zero incentive to go first as the person who goes second will be the one both claiming the objective and benefiting from destroying an enemy unit.

If it's on one side or the other it gives that side a big advantage. If there are objectives on both sides we're right back where we started.

And again, cavalry becomes king as they charge farther than infantry.

That’s why you need a solid infantry-based anti-cavalry option like pikes. Or buildings that can be occupied. Or specific anti-cavalry formations that units can adopt.
Also, historically, heavy cavalry charges were pretty devastating – it’s just that knights in full plate IRL were hilariously expensive to equip and maintain so no-one had truly overwhelming numbers of them.

Well, cavalry is not there to break well trained infantry with a frontal charge

You don't need a special anti-cavalry option, it should not be possible in the first place in a 1vs1 fight

And heavy cavalry was not that rare, specially in the timeframe the Empire armies are

You guys realize it's a fantasy game right, and not reality?

Please take it to the Old World OT chat...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/782431.page

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think half-random charges split the best of both worlds. D6+X, where X is/is based on movement.

Ugh >.< The worst!!

I can't imagine they'd go this route (or hopefully, any randomness in charge distances) again.

Keep on hoping baby. Both the Necromunda reboot and the Horus Heresy reboot have random charges.

Well that's disappointing! Thanks though, I'll be more realistic

 RiTides wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think half-random charges split the best of both worlds. D6+X, where X is/is based on movement.

Ugh >.< The worst!!

I can't imagine they'd go this route (or hopefully, any randomness in charge distances) again.

Keep on hoping baby. Both the Necromunda reboot and the Horus Heresy reboot have random charges.

Well that's disappointing! Thanks though, I'll be more realistic

As will I. I simply won't play the game if it's random charge. The more 8th is in it, the less likely I am to waste a single cent on it.